Climate Catastrophe & Social Change: An Eco-Socialist Perspective

Posted by admin on February 16, 2009 under Climate Change, Elections, Energy, Labor, Nationalities, Obama, Organizing, Socialism, Strategy, Trade Unions, Youth and Students | Read the First Comment

Eco-Socialism Conference

Oakland, California
January 10-11, 2009

Plenary Panel Remarks

By Carl Bloice

People look at me and roll their eyes when I offer the opinion that potential for international peace and cooperation would be greatly enhanced were it discovered that a large object was hurtling toward Earth and threatening great destruction to the planet. Science fiction would become science and possibly we would pull together to find a way to divert the menace from its path. As I said, people look at me like I’m a brother from another planet so I won’t go any further into it here. But still I think the scenario works as an analogy. So does the Economist magazine. Imagine my surprise when in its latest edition, it began its story on global warming with these words:

“Imagine that some huge rocky projectile, big enough to destroy most forms of life, was hurtling towards the earth, and it seemed that deep international co-operation offered the only hope of deflecting the lethal object. Presumably, the nations of the world would set aside all jealousies and ideological hangups, knowing that failure to act together meant doom for all.

“At least in theory, most of the world’s governments now accept that climate change, if left unchecked, could become the equivalent of a deadly asteroid. But to judge by the latest, tortuous moves in climate-change diplomacy-at a two-week gathering in western Poland, which ended on December 13th-there is little sign of any mind-concentrating effect.”

What I am about to argue here is that it is not just the logic of capitalist development in one or a number of countries that inhibits our ability to face the threats to our environment, but as well the operations of the global capitalist system. The challenge we face is how to arrive at a qualitatively new level of international coordination and cooperation.
The question is can such a global effort be put into effect by the existing national state entities and the transnational corporations that today shape economic development and commerce?

The planet – in the sense of place to human habitation – is under threat. It could be the result of some natural phenomenon like a giant meteor or the cooling of the sun but as nearly as those who know these things can figure out it’s the result of human activity and the danger is accelerating and there is a possibility that we can do something about it.

Reducing or eliminating our burning of fossil fuels as a source of heat, energy and materials is of the greatest importance in reducing the threat of climate change. And we must do everything we can to reduce the size of our carbon footprint. And that means doing all the things we now do or should do like eliminating plastic bags and bottles, increasing the use of fuel efficient vehicles and especially public mass transportation and equipping our communities and our industries with things like wind and solar energy. But we should be clear: all the green jobs in the world, all the Pirus driving and biodegradable diapers we can use will lessen but will not eliminate the danger we face. The problem is just too big.

Not only that, but global warming is only one of the radical affects our activity is having on the biosphere. There are other things like the pollution of oceans, the lackadaisical eliminating of hazardous our chemicals and deforestation and species destruction.

Peter Symon, the general secretary of the Communist Party of Australia until his death last month has written:

“Only a comprehensive emissions agreement negotiated by equals under the auspices of the United Nations and which is based on the interests and needs of all countries is going to be internationally acceptable. Any scheme based on the selfish needs of more powerful countries and the greed of corporations is not going to work.

“By their unrestrained exploitation and rape of the earth’s resources, the corporations are mainly responsible for the current spiraling consequences of climate change. Those who have caused the crisis cannot be expected to now reverse their behavior and put things right.”

“That is why ‘a new world outlook which accepts the interconnections between humanity and Nature and adopts objectives and principles of mutual benefit and the equality of all nations is the way to go,” Symon wrote in an article titled, Socialism, Internationalism and Climate Change.” Capitalism cannot but socialism can.”

The argument will, of course, arise that the ecological crisis cannot await the coming of socialism that the most stringent efforts must be made now under the present system.

Here I would like to refer to the views expressed last summer by the chair of the Japanese Communist Party Shii Kazuo.

“Look at the world in the 21st century in a broader perspective,” he said in an interview. “Under the present form of capitalism that puts profit making before anything else, poverty and economic inequalities are increasing at an alarming rate worldwide. The population facing hunger is increasing by 4 million each year. The rampage of speculative money is destroying people’s living conditions in many countries, in particular developing countries. The destruction of the global environment has emerged as a major critical issue.

“The profit-first principle of capitalism is causing many to wonder whether the world can survive along with it. In a broader perspective, the world is facing a major question whether capitalism is a viable economic system.”

He then went on, “On every one of the three issues that I mentioned, we must not lose time in making efforts to solve them even within the present framework of capitalism.”

Shii then spelled out several coordinate international reforms to be place on the agenda, including regulating speculative money flows, ending the speculation in food and targeted cuts in greenhouse gas emission. “This is also a matter that the world must address without delay even within the framework of capitalism,” he said.

“However, said Shii, “a question remains unsolved: can these two problems be solved through the efforts being made within the framework of capitalism? I would say they cannot be completely solved under capitalism, which is, after all, based on “profit-first” principle. This point will be made clearer in the course of attempting to implement structural changes. In that respect, the 21st century will be an era in which conditions for creating a new future society replacing capitalism will increasingly emerge.”

Those last two sentences, I believe are important. “… in the course of attempting to implement structural changes … the 21st century will be an era in which conditions for creating a new future society replacing capitalism will increasingly emerge.” It brought to mind a section of the Ecosocialist Manifesto written by Joel Kovel and Michael Lowery nearly a decade ago. It described itself as “a line of reasoning, based on a reading of the present crisis and the necessary conditions for overcoming it. ‘

“We make no claims of omniscience,” it went on. “Far from it, our goal is to invite dialogue, debate, emendation, above all, a sense of how this notion can be further realized. Innumerable points of resistance arise spontaneously across the chaotic ecumene of global capital. Many are immanently ecosocialist in content. How can these be gathered?”

The Manifesto went on to talk about the desirability of an “ecosocialist international.” I will leave that discussion for another time, only say that in my humble opinion any viable movement for systemic change must find its genesis in and be based up the needs, aspirations and struggles of working people and that the principle strategic task for the labor movement and the environmental movement is to find the nexus between the two. The way forward lies in the day-to-day linking of the human needs with what is necessary for sustainable development.

In my view the struggle for socialism is part and parcel of the struggle for ecologically sustainable development and vice versa.

My subject here is the prospect for the requisite level of international coordination and cooperation under the present circumstances.

Last year the Labor government of Australia issued what is called the Garnaut Climate Change Review, prepared under the direction of Professor Ross Garnaut. It examined the probable impact of climate change on the Australian economy, and recommended what are referred to as “medium to long-term policies and policy frameworks to improve the prospects for sustainable prosperity.”

“Without a framework for global cooperation, every country has an incentive to free-ride on the actions of others while making as little effort as possible in the meantime,” Garnaut explained. “Collectively, this can only lead to one outcome, namely, inaction and the inexorable accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By the time the manifestation of climate change is sufficiently powerful to overcome the free-rider problem, most options will have been consigned to history.”

The report said, the developed countries “are yet to demonstrate their seriousness about such a commitment, and in any case cannot alone deliver such an outcome… Substantial reductions in emissions below business as usual in developing countries would also be required, and constraints in the order of what is required are not likely to be accepted over the next few years.” To achieve modest goals over the next 10 years “would be a major win, reflecting unprecedented levels of global cooperation. It might just be feasible.”

It might be possible the report said because “what might seem impossible from experience in other areas of international cooperation (such as international trade or arms control), has a chance. It is worth nurturing that chance.” That’s hardly a ringing declaration of faith in world collaboration.

The problem of coordinating the activities of the developed states with the developing ones is crucial. The stance of the some, like that of the Bush Administration, that any limits or restrictions on industrial activity in the countries that absorb the greater per capita share of the world’s resources must be matched by limits and restrictions by countries struggling to pull themselves out of grinding poverty will move nothing forward.

The Czech Republic has just assumed the presidency of the European Union. Last week the president of that country, Vaclav Klaus, wrote a commentary for the Financial Times. In it he spoke of “highly publicized (if not over-publicized) problems,” among them global warming.

“The global climate is basically not changing,” he wrote, “but global warming alarmists have succeeded in persuading politicians (and some ordinary people as well) that a doomsday is coming and on this false assumption they have tried to restrain our freedom and curtail our prosperity.

“We can also count on the fact that the Czech government will hopefully not be the champion of global warming alarmism. The Czechs feel that freedom and prosperity are much more endangered than the climate. The uniqueness of current levels of global warming is not a proven phenomenon. The explanation of factors that are contributing to global warming is not very clear and persuasive. Moves to mitigate climate change by fighting carbon dioxide emissions are useless and, what is most important, human beings have proved themselves to be sufficiently adaptable to an incrementally changing climate. We should turn our attention to other, really daunting issues.”

Klaus’ approach to climate change mirrors his view of the current international economic crisis. It is not systemic, but a “just” price we have to pay for immodest and over-confident politicians playing with the market.” “The Czech government will – hopefully – not push the world and Europe into more regulation, nationalization, de-liberalization and protectionism and “(A) big increase in financial regulation, as is being proposed so often these days, will only prolong the recession.

Klaus went on, “It would be much more helpful…to have a great reduction in all kinds of restrictions on private initiatives introduced in the last half a century during the era of the brave new world of the ‘social and ecological market economy”… The best thing to do now would be temporarily to weaken, if not repeal, various labor, environmental, social, health and other ‘standards’, because they block rational human activity more than anything else.”

Would it not be fair at this point to ask what the future holds for international coordination and cooperation hold when the person heading the largest trading bloc on the planet is an ecological knownothing and an unreconstructed economic neoliberal?

It would be simple to say that Klaus’ views are merely those of an individual leader. But that is hardly the case. The now globalized capitalist system still operates through existing national state entities and the transnational corporations. The conflicts between and amongst them are sharpening everyday. These antagonisms are at the roots of the past and present military conflicts of our era. As long as they remain the potential for international action to save the ecosystem remains tenuous at best.

Meanwhile, we must do more than talk about it. We must act. We must do what we can where we are. A tremendous battle is shaping up in the country over our future course. We must no stand aside from it. There was a section of President-elect Barack Obama’s university address the other day that caught my attention. Outlining the economic dangers that lie ahead and the necessity of government action, he said, “To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

Well, not exactly. To transform and sustain the biosphere we need much more, on a vastly bigger and universal scale. Still, it’s a good place to start. Doing nothing is no answer.

The message, I believe, we should carry forward as we struggle for what gains can be made today, is that capitalism as a world system is the major impediment to the kind of sound and sustainable social and economic policies we need and that socialism is a surer environment in which to preserve the ecosystem that sustains humanity. It must always be on the agenda in the 21st Century.