Sunday, December 14, 2014

Climate change - no change

“We are on a path to three or four degrees with this outcome,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate strategist for WWF.  “We are really unhappy about the weakening of the text. This gives us no level of comfort that we will be able to close the emissions gap to get emissions to peak before 2020,” she said. 

The final draft text, a five-page document put forward for approval on Saturday, offered little assurance of cutting emissions fast enough and deeply enough to curb warming. The final draft text appeared, it had been stripped of language that would have required the emissions cuts offered by countries to keep warming below the two-degree target. It was even unclear whether those targets would be subjected to a serious review. In an even bigger blow to small island countries, the draft made no mention of industrialised countries’ responsibility towards the small island states which are under threat of being drowned by rising seas.

 Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development, put it even more succinctly: “It sucks. It is taking us backwards.”

The Malaysian delegate said the proposed deal would not hold the major polluters to account. The Democratic Republic of the Congo representative said: “This crosses all our red lines.” Sudan flatly said the proposals were unacceptable.

“Let me be frank. There are parts of this text that make me very uncomfortable and parts that are very thin,” said Tony deBrum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands.

The idea of a global agreement in which the nations of the world bind themselves to specific targets for reducing carbon emissions, with penalties for not doing so, is over. In its place the new plan of action is to construct a patchwork of voluntary national pledges known as "intended nationally determined contributions." Each country will put on the table a package of promises about what they are willing to do and in some undefined way be held to it by collective moral force. These contributions will not go into effect until 2020, which many scientists believe is too late. Negotiators have opted for the stack of flimsy promises. It should come as a surprise to no one that nations are unwilling to surrender part of their sovereignty to a global agreement.

The disappointment with the progress of the Lima negotiations was widespread – and hugely at odds with the mood of optimism that prevailed at the opening of the talks. It was initially hoped the agreement would push the world’s large economies into making ambitious commitments to cut carbon pollution while also contributing funds and technology to protect the world’s poorest countries from climate change. But those hopes were frustrated by the divide over whether rising economies should be under similar obligation to cut emissions as America and Europe. India – though quickly emerging as one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters – says it should not be held to similar standards as the US and EU.

Never mind that the Lima failed, the environmentalists now place their never-ending faith and on-going trust in the coming Paris UN climate talks. Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London, said: “Though the weak text emerging from Lima is extremely disappointing, there are still 12 months for the negotiators to up their game before the critical Paris COP. Essential to this is for the negotiators to understand that the world’s public expect a global legally binding treaty. Not because it is enforceable, as we know they are not, but it shows commitment to a safe, better and hopefully more equitable world.” 

When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that time is running out to curb global warming to safer levels, adding that the world still has a chance to limit its deleterious effects. “I am deeply concerned that our collective action does not match our common responsibilities…. This is not the time for tinkering, it’s time for transformation. ” We in the World Socialist Movement can only agree with his sentiments but we know he does not share the same understanding with us about what this transformation means. Only a socialist revolution will suffice to generate conditions of equality, sustainability and human freedom and would necessarily draw its major impetus from the struggles of the working populations and communities at the bottom of the global hierarchy. Basic human needs must be ahead of all other needs and wants. As John Bellamy Foster expresses it “There is the need for a revolt from below in support of social and ecological transformation, pointing beyond the existing system….The transition to socialism and the transition to an ecological society are one.”

 If we were living in a rationally organised world, when confronted by the threat of global warming, a co-ordinated global response would be organised as a matter of course. Given the competitive nature of capitalism any agreement on trying to deal with climate change is bound to be feeble and inadequate. The stark reality which many well-intentioned environmentalists try to ignore is as long as they are cheaper, more economical, more profitable, coal and oil will be used. And no nation or capitalist corporation in that line of business is going to commit economic suicide by not seeking to make profits from supplying this paying demand for coal and oil. It is this damned system that allows them to operate as they do, that allows them to put profits before human and environmental interests, and that system needs to be abolished. If those concerned about the threat of climate change would think the matter through they should be campaigning not for capitalist governments and corporations to change their spots but for the end of capitalism. What this means is that popular organising to demand action on climate has never been more urgent. We can work across national boundaries in solidarity, sharing ideas, building strategies, and linking arms, engaging in the political battles country by country and community by community. For the movement, the challenge will be to use that moment to help people see that they are not alone. People, collectively, have the power to bring about change and transformation. Governments and corporations are made up of individuals who are, in the main, diametrically opposed to and totally disinterested in the views and opinions of most of the world’s people. But it will be the people, who, by sheer weight of numbers, will end the tyranny that is being waged now by international capitalism on their habitat. People everywhere are beginning to realise that their loyalty is to one another as well as to the maintenance and protection of the planet, not just for now, but for all future generations.


Capitalism is simply unable to run on green lines, as its motive force is expansion and domination, with no thought for the consequences for the people or the environment. The Socialist Party argues that capitalism is unable to cope with the ecological challenges that lie ahead, from global warming, to depletion of resources. Socialists have for years railed at capitalist market production for being on a relentless collision course with the environment. 

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

If the root of the reasons why countries are unable to cut carbon emission is not considered, constituting a solid and steady agreement will be even more arduous than it is right now. Accumulation is primary reason why countries do not reduce carbon pollution. If countries stop producing, their economies will experience a vigorous breakdown, which would consequently transmit the harm to the whole global society. If there's no profit, there's no production, there's no economy, there are no jobs. The web of the system would cease, and this would affect all of us. Businesses need to expand their market share, therefore, they can't simply cut their profits, because that would dismantle them. In order to be functional, the system needs to follow the well known dynamics of: M-C-M.
On the other hand, attempts to curb carbon emission significantly under the restrictions imposed by the capitalist logic and mechanics tend to be frustrating, and once again, they show how fragile and insufficient they are.
Regarding the rest of the article, which proclaims that socialism is the unquestionable salvation, such idea is somehow unreasonable. Humanity does not have other resources that allow it to go beyond carbon and meet the needs altogether. Overcoming carbon demands long-term and costly investments and it is not possible to satisfy the necessary production with non-polluting sources. It is difficult to see how even a perfect socialist society, having the instruments available today, could surmount the problem of carbon and oil. To a considerable degree, it is plausible to a assume that the effects of pollution could be reduced significantly, but not totally eliminated.

ajohnstone said...

Your comment that solving the climate change as proposed is practically impossible within the constraints of capitalism is indeed accurate.

Your other observations are of course speculative and can be subject to friendly debate.

Yes, even many of the renewables will have an environmental impact...whether hydro, wind, solar or tidal, these do influence the local ecology, the flora and fauna so nothing is going to be 100% non-polluting. But they can, however, substitute fossil fuels and provide sufficient energy for society, which is what i think you contest is possible even in socialism.

You are right there are no easy answers to ecological questions, and we cannot dismiss them by saying that socialism will be the panacea for the environment and the post may have veered towards such an impression. Rather we can point out that satisfying human need and caring for the environment will be at the forefront of socialism’s priorities.

The continuation of capitalism is a blind uncontrolled gamble on the conditions of life itself. Socialism is changing the odds a bit more in favour of humanity’s continued existence through rational decisions and choices that are not dependent upon pounds and pence.

In socialism, a needs-oriented society, the concept of "profits" would be meaningless while the imperative to "growth" would disappear. This would naturally lead to different, in many cases quite different, productive methods being adopted than now under capitalism.

Goods would be produced and distributed as useful things intended to satisfy human need. Because they are no longer being introduced for sale on the market, they would not have a price. So, instead, estimates of what was likely to be needed over a given period would be expressed as physical quantities of specified products and materials not money. There would be no need for any universal unit of account to measure it. Calculations would be carried out directly in kind not money. Other more important factors than cost would be able to be taken into account in making choices about which materials and productive methods to use. Instead of what minimised the production cost of some product being the only criterion, other factors such as the protection of the environment and the conservation and the ecological suitability of materials and energy could be given the important place they deserve.

Socialism would have no difficulty in adopting practices which is impossible under capitalism. This would be the practice of “conservation production”, to organise production in ways which will minimise the negative effect on the environment. No sane society would burn millions of tonnes of oil and coal in power stations without considering the alternative technology which already exists to produce electricity. Socialist society will function quite differently from capitalist society, although initially at least it will have to use mainly the same equipment. Many are completely engrossed in the ramifications of present capitalist society. They are so conditioned by the impossible job of trying to make capitalism work effectively that they find it difficult to imagine how a real alternative to it could function.

If what you say is true that socialism is not the salvation, then we might as well start considering that there is no hope at all for mankind's survival...so all bets are off, we have no chance, at all...but even some socialists may argue that at the end of the day, capitalism may produce a compromise that permits a few to go on but i think, imho, for the rest of us, it is socialism or extinction. The urgency is to establish socialism before we reach the climate tipping point where no matter what we do to reverse the carbon emissions and other pollution, will simply prove ineffective and the physics will take its course and the human species will join the dinosaurs.


ajohnstone said...

I should mention that some socialists do see stop-gap solutions such as the continued use of nuclear power as a substitute for fossil fuels but again these decisions are not ours in the Socialist Party to make a priori. Those living in socialism will be deciding the details of their society.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for showing your side on the debate. Your perspective is very interesting and nourishing, although I'm still skeptical about some of your considerations.
Best regards.