The Long Ecological Revolution

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Thu Mar 10, 2022 3:10 pm

Image
2 de Julho settlement in Betim, Minas Gerais. (Photo: MST Collection)

2022 begins with the environment crying for help

Originally published: the Landless Workers' Movement MST by Fernanda Alcântara (January 20, 2022 ) - Posted Mar 09, 2022
Climate Change, Environment, InequalityBrazil, GlobalInterviewMarcio Astrini

From the intense heat in Rio Grande do Sul to the record floods in the South of Bahia and the North of Minas Gerais, it is possible to observe today in Brazil a scenario that is likely to repeat itself worldwide this year: the impacts of global warming on the Earth.

The planet has recorded warming of 1.1 degree Celsius above the temperatures of the last century. Applied to our reality, these dangerous climate changes are already present as a harsh reality that needs to be recognized. Within the current capitalist system, the most vulnerable are the first to suffer from the consequences of unbridled and irrational consumption.

To understand a little more about these actions and the possible ways to survive in the face of a planet that asks for help, check out the interview with Marcio Astrini, Executive Secretary of the Climate Observatory, a network of 68 Brazilian civil society organizations.

We have been following in the last period the catastrophic results of the heavy rains in Bahia and, more recently, in Minas Gerais. In Rio Grande do Sul, the state has suffered from a strong drought, and thermometers above 40 degrees. How are these cases interconnected?

Image
Marcio Astrini, Executive Secretary of the Climate Observatory. (Photo: Reproduction)

Marcio Astrini: It’s not only these. Last year we had floods in China, in Belgium, in Germany, with hundreds of deaths; we had very high temperatures in the United States; in California we had a record high temperature never seen on planet Earth since 1930, with 54.4ºC, other records as well;

So I would say that there are two main themes that tie all these situations together. The first one that we’re living through we call extreme weather, or extreme climate events, which is when we go outside the normal climate behavior that we’re used to on the planet. These are very high or very low temperatures, or very prolonged and intense drought periods, or rainy periods where there is too much precipitation in a short period of time. Obviously, the structures of the cities, the resilience that we have built for agriculture, for example, are not prepared for such extreme weather or climate variations, and we end up suffering from these situations when they occur.

Climate change does exactly that, these situations, which cause this stress on human adaptation, on the infrastructure of life that we have created on Earth. And these events end up occurring more frequently, or more prolonged, or more severely.

From the social, or more tangible, point of view, there is the question of who really suffers. The most impacted will be the most vulnerable and poorest populations, or the poorest countries, in a broader conception. These are countries that will lose the ability to manage food for their population, impacted in their structures, such as ports, airports, means of transportation, even condemning certain areas to isolation. Countries that are going to disappear because of the rise in sea level. So the ones who will suffer from these events are the poorest populations. In the end, the translation of climate change for the world is the increase in social inequalities.

Image
Impacts of climate change per 20-year period.

When we see floods in Bahia or in Minas, the common image is of people who already live in a very difficult situation, already vulnerable, losing the little that they have, when they don’t lose their lives. These are always the populations most impacted. Climate change will affect everyone, but not equally.

Still on the results of these environmental crises, are they inevitable accidents? What factors contribute to this damage?

MA: There are impacts that are going to occur anyway, because the planet is already 1.1 ºC warmer and it is going to get even more 1.5 ºC warmer no matter what we do, because what we have already emitted of carbon and other gases into the atmosphere will inevitably lead to the warming of the planet by 1.4 to 1.6 ºC.

According to the last report of the IPCC, the UN’s intergovernmental panel of scientists, for this inevitable scenario, what we can do is an adaptation effort, mainly in these places or for these populations that are in a situation of vulnerability. In other words, people who are in areas at risk of flooding, extreme drought, or landslide areas need to be directly assisted by the State, by the governments, so that they can be relocated or for the development of infrastructure works, so that these populations are not left alone, helpless, facing these climate changes and left to their own devices. Because if this happens, scenes that we are seeing now in Bahia will repeat themselves, even in more disastrous situations than what happened there.

Image
Floods at the end of 2021 in Bahia. (Photo: Cadu Souza)

Governments and states around the world need to assist and adapt or provide infrastructure so that the hardest hit populations can adapt and have reduced impact on the planet, which is already changing, and will change even more.

The second mission is to stop warming the planet. Because if it doesn’t stop, the need for adaptation will grow more and more, but there is also a limit to how much we will be able to adapt. At 1.5 ºC you are already going to have a lot of damage, but the level of adaptation is still possible. But above 2 ºC we don’t know if it is possible to adapt to certain points on the planet.

I’ll give you an example: the semi-arid region of the Northeast, in a circumstance of warming of about 3 or 4 ºC, will suffer such prolonged and severe periods of drought that it will lose the capacity to produce food in many of these areas. This impact is not adaptable you lose; the families that live there, mostly family farming, small farmers, will no longer be able to produce. And, sometimes, that food production is what sustains a community, a city, and what about this producer? He will have to migrate to large urban centers, stressing the public services that are already so necessary in these spaces and that are not offered to the population.

Image

Housing, sanitation, education, health, employment, how are you going to deal with this mass that is going to migrate to the urban centers? What about the lack of food that this will generate? Who will be most impacted by the lack of food in a country like ours?

There comes a time when adaptation is no longer enough, so we have to play this double game: adapt to a scenario that we already know is going to happen, but prevent this scenario from getting worse. And what we have noticed is that it is getting worse, because the measures are not being adopted, the planet’s warming is not being slowed down, the emission of greenhouse gases is not being stopped, and we are warming the planet.

What about the future, what are the prospects and what needs to be done to prevent more disasters from happening from now on?

MA: What we need to do in a country like ours is to look at the climate issue as something absolutely essential. Brazil is a climate-dependent country; a good part of our economy, be it the local economy, from small productions, from family production to the large agricultural productions in Brazil, depends on climate regularity. And this sector is a very big slice of our economy.

So, if we have climate instability, we are going to mess with the lives of these people, this whole sector is going to suffer drastic changes. We already see annual reports saying that crop losses due to extremes, especially in the south of the country, which is now being hit by a heat wave and intense drought. Brazil has to pay a lot of attention to this climate issue.

A good part of the electric energy in Brazil also depends on the climatic activity, because it is supplied to us through hydroelectric plants, which need constant rainfall with a certain balance. If it rains a lot, it is no use either, because the reservoirs don’t have the capacity to store rain that falls all at once and not in a regular way. Then there will be a lack of power generation capacity, which is essential for the development of a country, and this impacts not only the country’s economy, but also the lives of all of us; it even impacts directly on the electricity bill. Our country is very susceptible and highly damaged by the issue of climate change.

Image
Aerial image of a wildfire near the Jacundá Flona, in Rondônia. (Photo Bruno Kelly/Amazônia Real)

In general, the world needs to end fossil fuels and deforestation. Our big problem is in this area, and we need to eliminate deforestation, even because it makes no sense from the economic or social point of view, it only brings damage to the country. It is, until today, practiced by a group of criminals, who even have the president of the republic and the current government as their representatives, and they have fun with environmental crimes, backed up by the figure of the president.

What the planet needs to do is already clear, it is mapped out which technologies need to be substituted, what needs to be done, which fuels need to be discarded, substituted. It is also clear what we need to stop doing, which is the case of deforestation.

These technologies exist, but what we don’t have so far is enough initiative and political will to make things happen. And these actions are going to depend a lot on the pressure of the people, the press, the governments, and on us having qualified governments that actually do what needs to be done.

In our case, for the climate issue, an essential action is to change the current government. With this government, Brazil will continue to play against what needs to be done, because it is a problem for the current climate agenda and will not deliver any solution.

*Edited by Maria Silva

https://mronline.org/2022/03/09/2022-be ... -for-help/

***************************************************

Embargo on Russian oil gives gift to energy corporations, deals blow to hopes for peace
Sameena RahmanMarch 9, 2022 195 3 minutes read
Download PDF flyer https://flyer-generator.herokuapp.com/? ... sts/102952

President Biden announced a major escalation in its sanctions against Russia yesterday with a ban on the import of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal to the United States. A White House press statement said that the United States made this decision “in close consultation with our allies and partners around the world” and with bipartisan consensus. This move from the U.S. government fuels the flames of global tensions to the benefit of giant energy and military corporations, making the prospect of lasting peace in Ukraine even more remote.

The new sanctions also block any new investment into Russia’s energy sector or in foreign companies that invest in it. Russia was the world’s third-largest producer of petroleum and other oil-based products after the United States and Saudi Arabia in 2020, and its economy is heavily dependent on these commodities. In 2021, the United States imported 245 million barrels of crude oil from Russia. About 8% of U.S. oil imports come from Russia.

The goal of these sanctions is to devastate the Russian economy, a cruel process that will affect the Russian working class the most. But workers in the United States are also facing the brunt of rising gas prices. Oil prices surged from approximately $90 per barrel a month ago to hit a high of around $130 as Russia’s oil industry is isolated from the rest of the globe. This has hiked up gas prices in the United States, with the nationwide average reaching $4.25.

It is also important to note that even before the war in Ukraine broke out, gas prices were already increasing. The Biden administration asked the Federal Trade Commission last November to consider if ‘illegal conduct’ by corporations contributed to the rise in gas prices. The idea that workers in the United States now have to “sacrifice” to “defend Ukrainian democracy” helps cover up this capitalist greed.

Politicians with deep ties to U.S. energy corporations, which stand to cash in from this global upheaval by eating up the market share vacated by Russian companies, have been the most enthusiastic about an oil embargo. Before Biden’s announcement, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska introduced the Ban Russian Energy Imports Act.

The corrupt nature of their position is evident. Enersystems, a coal-based energy company which Manchin co-founded, paid him “$492,000 in interest, dividends and other income in 2020, and that his share of the firm is worth between $1 million and $5 million” according to the Washington Post. 71% of Manchin’s investment income comes from Enersystems. ConocoPhillips, a huge oil corporation with much of its production based in Alaska, is a top campaign donor to Murkowski.

The American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group representing oil and gas industry corporations, unsurprisingly welcomed the embargo, saying in a statement: “We share the goal of reducing reliance on foreign energy sources and urge policymakers to advance American energy leadership and expand domestic production to counter Russia’s influence in global energy markets.”

Russia is currently the top source of energy imports for many nations in Europe, but U.S. capitalists seek to dominate the European energy market through relatively recent LNG terminals like Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass in Louisiana, which is already seeing record LNG flows for export to Europe.

Large oil corporations and their loyal servants in the government stand to benefit while working class Russians experience an economic collapse and workers in the United States see the cost of living creep even higher. And the intensification of the west’s economic war on Russia prolongs the suffering of workers in Ukraine as well. The only way to establish a lasting peace is through the de-escalation of the situation, beginning with a pledge by NATO to cease its expansion and efforts to turn Ukraine into a staging ground for aggression. Sanctions targeting Russia’s most vital export greatly damage prospects for a real peace process.

https://www.liberationnews.org/embargo- ... rationnews
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:53 pm

Image

Socialist planning could reverse sobering findings in new UN climate report
Originally published: Liberation by Tina Landis (March 3, 2022 ) | - Posted Mar 11, 2022

The latest UN Climate Report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability released Feb. 28 once again urges immediate action and outlines the catastrophic effects that humanity faces with the continued lack of meaningful action. Compiled by 270 researchers from 67 countries, it outlines the impacts that are already unfolding and how these disasters will increase even if warming is limited to the 1.5 Celsius temperature threshold above pre-industrial levels.

The world is currently at around 1.1 C warming and we are already experiencing unprecedented heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods, and extreme weather events that has led to 84 million climate refugees and increasing food and water insecurity. These issues will only multiply as the world warms. The non-binding commitments that came out of the recent COP26 Climate Summit, have us on track for around 2.4 C warming, which would result in mass devastation and displacement for large portions of the global population.

The UN report criticizes the incremental changes currently being implemented as falling far short of the transformational shifts that are needed. The report goes on to lay out the catastrophic impacts of 2 C and 3 C warming and calls for immediate comprehensive action from global governments to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, along with financial support from the wealthy countries for those most vulnerable.

Situation is more urgent than UN report indicates
Due to inadequate infrastructure, weak social safety nets, and a greater reliance on the natural world, the climate impacts already being felt by countries of the Global South have much more devastating effects than climate impacts occurring in the Global North. This is due to the legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism that has created a development gap that must be addressed by those most responsible for the problem–mainly the United States and the European Union.

While these UN IPCC reports are useful for climate activists and policymakers to point to, we must keep in mind that they take a more conservative approach than independent scientific reports. Since they rely on the consensus of hundreds of contributors and have a several year lag time between data collection and publishing due to the long peer review process, in reality, the situation is even more urgent than what the report outlines as a result of the rapidly changing conditions.

Supreme Court expected to undercut Environmental Protection Agency

Meanwhile in the United States, even meager efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are only in the planning phase are seeing push-back from right-wing forces. On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency case that aims to undermine the EPAs ability to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, which are the second largest source of planet-warming emissions in the United States.

This case is a preemptive attack by Big Coal and its backers against a nascent regulation to be proposed by the EPA later this year that is expected to draw from the failed Obama-era Clean Power Plan. Opponents of the forthcoming regulation argue that the EPA should not have powers to set industry-wide regulations on power plants, but only to set regulations on individual power plants–undercutting the already weak federal authority to implement significant emissions reductions.

To reach the Biden administration goals of 50% emissions reductions below 2005 levels by 2030–which scientists urge is necessary to keep below 1.5 C warming –will take herculean efforts. The Biden proposal for meager climate actions that stalled out in Congress last year lacked a clear path to achieving this level of reductions, and would be further undermined if the West Virginia case wins. In general, this Supreme Court case would have far-reaching implications toward a future diminishing of the already insufficient powers of the EPA and other regulatory bodies.

The broader question is, how can the United States–which is responsible for the largest share of emissions globally based on historic and per capita contributions–ever achieve the reductions needed to stem climate catastrophe when corporations and their government backers have the power to undermine regulatory authority and legislation? Time and again we see fossil fuel corporations use their bottomless coffers to bully and buy off legislators and regulators through lawsuits, lobbying and campaign contributions. And at the same time, these corporations have spent billions of dollars on PR campaigns to spread disinformation about climate change and their role in creating this crisis.

Capitalism not capable of resolving the crisis

The weak regulatory mechanisms under capitalism and the lack of authority of the UN IPCC to hold countries accountable to their commitments fall far short of meeting the challenge that humanity faces. We need a socialist planned economy that can implement a long term plan to make the transformations that are needed for our very survival: a rapid and just transition off fossil fuels and a restoration of ecosystems to draw down carbon from the atmosphere, restore the water cycle and cool the climate.

We can see glimpses of what is possible in Cuba’s 100-year climate change adaptation plan and China’s rapid reductions in particulate pollution and massive investments in renewable energy that far surpass any other country. Only through a socialist planned economy can such comprehensive shifts occur in the rapid timeframe that is crucial.

Under free market capitalism, the government can only give incentives for corporations to implement technologies that aid in emission reductions through penalties or subsidies, in hopes that enough corporations will “do the right thing.” This haphazard, piecemeal approach to emissions reductions–that can be undone with a new administration, a midterm election, or a Supreme Court ruling–is a far cry from the urgent action that is needed and what is possible for humanity to achieve.

This is why it is crucial that we continue to build a broad people’s movement–a movement of the working class–to force concessions from the top, and in the end, to overthrow the corrupt and irrational system of capitalism and build a society that is based on the needs of the people and the planet.

Climate change is not some crisis that will happen far in the future. It is happening now. We collectively have the tools and knowledge needed to transform society from one that is based on a degenerative relationship with the planet to one that is regenerative and for the benefit of all life. This is what is needed for humanity’s survival. And the time to act is now.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/11/sociali ... te-report/

It's ain't gonna happen by magic. The ruling class has made it clear that despite half a century of warning that it will not alter it's prime purpose, the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few. They would destroy the world first. They must me removed from political and economic power or the future of our species is too grim to contemplate.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:41 pm

Image

Climate research strike? Linking up environmental science with the ‘science of society’
Posted Mar 18, 2022 by W. T. Whitney, Jr.

Originally published: Peoples World (March 16, 2022 )

“Our obligation as scientists [is] to make sure we fight the good fight and ensure the fruits of science are not monopolized by the powerful and the elite.” — Richard Levins

Three scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are discouraged. New Zealanders Bruce C. Glavovic and Timothy F. Smith and Australian Iain White criticize governments for not doing enough about climate change. They are calling upon fellow IPCC scientists to no longer conduct research on climate change. “More scientific reports, another set of charts,” Glavovic exclaims; “I mean, seriously, what difference is that going to make?”

Hundreds of IPCC scientists provide the United Nations periodically with reports on adverse impacts of climate change. The most recent report, issued in February, details rising seas, terrible droughts, atypical weather events, thawing permafrost, dying forests, and massive displacement of populations.

Once atmospheric warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius over 19th-century levels, changes will be irreversible. The increase so far is 1.1 degrees Celsius. Surveyed, 60% of scientists working on an earlier IPCC report agreed that temperatures would rise almost three percent by the end of the present century.

The three scientists published a statement in Climate and Development in December 2021. They pointed out that “indicators of adverse global change rise year upon year. …[T]he time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.”

Climate scientists have contributed to people’s general awareness of the issues. Lots of people understand that fossil fuels, when burned, generate gaseous emissions which, in excess, cause atmospheric warming. Many people are more or less aware that as consumption and industrial production increase, emissions rise too. In their appeal, the three protesting scientists are, in effect, reaching out to the public and politicians, as if to spark a resistance movement within society.

There is a side story that hasn’t resonated yet. Capital requires new wealth to be created in order to survive. That only happens as long as production and consumption are increasing. Therefore, with capitalism in charge, rising emissions are a secondary matter.

That’s why those three scientists seeking to renegotiate a science-society contract are spoiling for a fight that, in essence, is anti-capitalist. Unsurprisingly, the prospect is slim of allies flocking to their cause from either the scientific community or the public sector. But of the two, the scientists may be more receptive. What follows here is a look at the potential for collaboration among scientists.

Normally scientists don’t need a supporting cast. They often generate information that is applauded—for example, research findings that contribute to high technology consumer items. Even the science behind weapons manufacture gets a pass.

The public praises most scientific investigation involving natural and biological processes, notably vaccine research, novel therapies for cancer or inherited illnesses, and the development of antibiotics. For instance, advances leading to antibiotic treatment of streptococcal infection led directly to the eradication of terrible afflictions of heart valves, joints, and/or the brain. Everyone benefited.

But something went wrong in other healthcare situations. Scientific findings were not implemented, or only partially so. Population groups were excluded, as per decision-making at the highest levels of government and society. As regards the climate crisis, everyone is excluded.

Scientists found that ingested lead interferes with enzyme activities and thereby injures the brains of children, and causes other disastrous ailments. In 2014, the majority Black population of Flint, Mich., learned that their drinking water contained high levels of lead. Eight years later, lead levels are down, but still potentially toxic. Epidemiologists say there is no safe level of lead in a child’s blood.

The high death rates of African-American infants are an abomination. Specialists of many disciplines long ago showed how babies stay healthy. Their mothers have to be healthy, well-educated, and well-nourished. Ready access to competent health care for mothers and babies is essential. But African-American babies have long died at rates two to three times higher than those of white babies.

Maybe scientists investigating natural and biologic processes—our climate scientists, for example—and scientists concerned with how society works can join forces. Both sets of scientists study realities involving either matter, natural and biological processes, or collective human aspirations and actions. They study the interaction of real things, and how things change.

Similarities in methodological approach are one basis for scientists to collaborate in developing joint projects, enabling the general population to understand the role of science in society, and firming up implementation of research findings.

Scientists within the Marxist tradition look for linkages and commonalities. According to historian Helena Sheehan, “The history of Marxism in relation to science is extraordinarily dense and dramatic. From the beginning, Marxism took science extremely seriously, not only for its economic promise in building a socialist society, but for its revelatory power in understanding the world. Marxism has made the strongest claims of any intellectual tradition before or since about the socio-historical character of science.”

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels incorporated findings from the physical and biological sciences into their political analyses. Here is Marx:

Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centers, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population, on the one hand, concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it, therefore, violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil.

Here Marx is discussing political power, changing modes of production, human migration from country to city, and the lack of organic waste material formerly produced by animals and people—which accounts for reduced soil fertility. His reference point is the enclosure movement in 19th century England. Wealthy bourgeoisie bought land, created large parcels, and surrounded them with walls and fences to allow for animal grazing. Villagers and country people, now deprived of animals and land and unable to feed themselves, moved to cities and became factory workers.

This sequence of developments Marx characterized as a “metabolic rift.”

In developing his analysis, Marx gained an assist from scientist Justus von Liebig, who studied agricultural chemistry and plant growth.

Marx declared that “Humans live from nature, i.e.: nature is our body, and we must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if we are not to die. And “man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature … man is a part of nature.”

Frederick Engels was a kindred spirit. He asks:

What did the Spanish planters in Cuba—who burned down forests, the slopes of the mountains, and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertilizer for one generation of very highly profitable coffee trees—care that the tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the now unprotected upper stratum of the soil, leaving behind only bare rock? In relation to nature, as to society, the present mode of production is predominantly concerned only about the first, tangible success …Thus at every step, we are reminded that … [we], belong to nature, and exist in its midst.

We propose that scientists studying natural phenomena and processes are ripe for collaborative relations with social scientists, including Marxist investigators. As noted, they share similar methodologies, and most of them a dedication to human well-being. Growing numbers of scientists, both kinds, are very likely primed to accept that a linkage runs from wealth accumulation to perennially increasing production, to rising emissions, to atmospheric warming.

Together with the public, scientists need to realize that capital is bound to make its peace with planetary warming, no matter the disaster ahead. Aware that their research impinges on human lives, a few scientists maybe will turn to political activism.

Influenced by the worsening climate crisis, those social scientists receptive to Marxist analysis would increasingly familiarize themselves with issues involving the biologic and natural sciences. One envisions collaboration among the different kinds of scientists and even common struggle in the political arena. Anticipating the new society, revolutionaries within the ranks of scientists, acting together now, would gain a head start in building scientific institutions that serve the people.

Discussion here touching upon social transformation is incomplete without defining the political role of working people. They are the protagonists of the change to come and of rescue during the climate crisis. The desperate situation now has an urgency and sweep extending far beyond burdens falling specifically upon the working class, like economic exploitation and plunder. Now, the world’s entire population may be heading to ruin.

Yet in times past, the working class has shown itself capable of carrying out social revolutions amid other circumstances of generalized disaster. This time, the working class, organized and motivated, could take the lead in the climate crisis while brandishing, as before, some sort of an all-encompassing demand. In the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, the working class called for national liberation; in the Russian revolutions of 1917, for “peace, land, and bread.”

https://mronline.org/2022/03/18/climate ... f-society/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 22, 2022 3:18 pm

Image

There is no ‘green transition’
Posted Mar 21, 2022 by James Plested

Originally published: Red Flag (March 19, 2022 ) |

It has become common, in recent years, to hear assertions that the world is already in the midst of a transition to a green economy. A prominent example from Australia is billionaire iron ore magnate and recent convert to “green hydrogen” Andrew Forrest, who recently claimed that “the journey to replace fossil fuels with green energy … is now violently on the move”. This kind of “green triumphalism”, however, is little more than a fantasy—one that is (and often consciously intended to be) a barrier to winning the kind of radical change we need.

It’s understandable that some would believe a “green transition” is underway. After all, we’re constantly bombarded with propaganda to that effect. These days it’s no longer viable for the rich and powerful and their political servants simply to deny the reality of climate change and other environmental challenges. The new fad is to talk up whatever (inevitably small-scale) green initiatives are happening, and spruik the array of magical technological fixes that, like Forrest’s beloved “green hydrogen”, are always somehow just on the verge of taking off.

The propagandists of the “green transition” point to rapid increases in global investment in renewable energy and other green technologies over the past decade or so. And when you look at the raw numbers, they appear to provide some backing for the argument. Global investment in renewables was projected by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to come in at US$367 billion in 2021—up from $359 billion in 2020 and $336 billion in 2019. That’s a lot of new wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric power stations.

Those figures alone, however, are far from telling the whole story. The $367 billion investment in renewables in 2021 has to be seen in the context of the $1.9 trillion the IEA estimates was spent globally on energy production as a whole, a figure that includes $813 billion specifically on fossil fuels.

This points to a problem that quickly becomes apparent when you look at the relative position of fossil fuels and renewables in the global energy mix over time. The portion of energy coming from renewables has increased—from 6.6 percent in 1990, when climate change was first gaining serious attention, to 8.8 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in 2020. But a 5.4 percent increase over three decades, including only a slight acceleration to 3.2 percent in the decade to 2020, is hardly the kind of “transition” that scientists think is necessary to avoid runaway warming. If we continue at the current rate, the portion of renewables in the global energy mix will still be only just over 20 percent in 2050.

The reason for this slow progress is clear. While renewable energy production has grown significantly in the past 30 years, so too has the fossil fuel industry. In 1990, total global energy production from fossil fuels was 83,048 terawatt-hours (TWh). In 2019, before the artificial dip in production caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures, it was 136,131 TWh—an increase of 64 percent. The production of renewable energy has increased at a faster pace—rising from 6,226 TWh in 1990 to 17,466 TWh in 2019. Because it comes from such a low base, however, this 180 percent jump has had very little impact on overall global emissions.

A report by the IEA published in early March—Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021—shows clearly why increasing investment in renewable energy alone doesn’t make a genuine “green transition”. The report found that in 2021 total global CO2 emissions rose at a record pace of 6 percent to a new high of 36.3 billion tonnes, despite, at the same time, “renewable power generation registering its largest ever growth”.

Perhaps the best way to judge whether a “green transition” is underway, however, is to look at concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The data on this is much more reliable than countries’ self-reported emissions, which are often the product of some highly dubious accounting methods. It’s the figures on concentrations of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere that show most clearly the disconnect between the increasing amount of green rhetoric from politicians and business leaders, and the unfortunately very gloomy reality.

If the “green transition” spruikers are to be believed, we’ve been heading in the right direction for some time now. Yet not only have overall concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere not ceased their relentless rise since the dawn of the age of “climate ambition” in the early 1990s, the rate of increase has been gradually accelerating.

Image
According to measurements made by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2021 was 416 parts per million (ppm). This compares to 354 ppm in 1990, 370 ppm in 2000 and 390 ppm in 2010. Over the same period the rate of annual increase has risen from an average of 1.5 ppm in the 1990s, to 2 ppm in the 2000s, to 2.4 ppm in the 2010s.

Image
When concentrations of methane—a much more potent driver of warming, in the short term, than CO2—are added to this, the situation looks dire indeed. Atmospheric methane concentrations stalled for a period in the early 2000s, but since around 2007 they have been rising rapidly. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere sat at 1,909 parts per billion (ppb) in November 2021, up from 1,774 ppb in 2005. Over that period, the average rate of annual increase has risen from 5.2 ppb in the five years from 2006, to 7.7 ppb from 2011 to 2016 and 9.6 ppb from 2016 to today.

Image
It’s hard to take talk of a “green transition” seriously when both the total volume of emissions, and the rate of increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, continue to hit new highs. Until those numbers start to come down, we should be very suspicious of anyone making claims about the wonderful world of green capitalism we’re supposedly on our way to. No doubt many such people are simply naive, but there are certainly some among them who are quite conscious of the role their pronouncements play in greenwashing the dirty reality of capitalism’s ongoing addiction to fossil fuels.

All this was true before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the new situation created by the war, the reasons to be hopeful about the world’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis are, unfortunately, even fewer. There was no real “green transition” underway before the war, and now there’s even less of one.

The invasion and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the West in response have triggered massive increases in the price of oil, coal and gas. Climate and environmental activists have expressed hope that this may reinforce the need for an accelerated shift to renewable energy. In the short term, though, it seems more likely to trigger a race to expand fossil fuel production by the Western powers.

Elon Musk—a hero of some of the more obnoxious green-tech-focused “environmentalists”—was typical of the wider sentiment. “Hate to say it”, he tweeted on 5 March, “but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures”.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson indicated that Britain may increase domestic gas and oil production from the North Sea to make up the shortfall of what it had previously imported from Russia. “One of the things we are looking at”, he said, “is the possibility of using more of our own hydrocarbons … We have got to reflect the reality that there is a crunch on at the moment. We need to intensify our self-reliance as a transition with more hydrocarbons”.

In Germany, economy minister Robert Habeck, a member of the Greens, was reported by the Financial Times to have said that “Europe may be forced to burn more coal in the face of Russian aggression and spiralling gas prices”. Pressure is also building on US President Joe Biden to support a rapid expansion of fossil fuel production there, despite the fact that, unlike European countries such as Britain and Germany, the US hasn’t been a major customer for Russian oil and gas.

Executives at the world’s major fossil fuel companies are rubbing their hands with glee. Rising demand for coal in 2021 had already boosted profits, leading some companies to make expansion plans. Those plans, it seems likely, will now be accelerated. And Australia’s fossil fuel industry—one of the world’s largest—will be among the main beneficiaries. The Australian government was already planning a massive expansion of our already booming gas industry. We can expect the new situation to further encourage it in this.

Will all this just be a minor speed bump in the road to a greener future? No doubt that’s how our leaders are going to spin it. But we should remember that a significant expansion of fossil fuel production isn’t something that can be easily unwound if and when the “extraordinary times” created by Russia’s invasion end.

The development of new infrastructure for the extraction, processing and distribution of fossil fuels costs a lot of money. And the companies involved (and the governments of the countries in which they are based) are unlikely to accept that their investments will have to be written off if and when the (supposed) “green transition” resumes. They will, rather, keep doing what they’ve been doing for decades—working hard to delay climate action as long as possible so they can squeeze out every last drop of profit possible.

The one hope remains that people won’t fall for the propaganda about a non-existent “green transition”, and that they will continue to fight the fossil fuel barons and their political servants every step of the way. Put simply, there can be no genuine “green transition” in a system like capitalism that’s defined by the endless, competitive pursuit of profit and growth, and by all the various destructive tendencies—whether those impacting on the environment, or those, as we’re seeing in Ukraine, of war—that inevitably accompany that.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/21/there-i ... ransition/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:47 pm

Image

Record heat waves sweeping both Poles of Earth, climate scientists warn of danger
Originally published: NewsClick.in by Sandipan Talukdar (March 22, 2022 ) | - Posted Mar 23, 2022

Earth’s ice caps are simmering in a bad spell of heat, with temperatures reaching unprecedented extremes in both the poles. Currently, some parts of Antarctica have been reported to witness swelling in temperature that is over 70 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) warmer than the usual average. Similarly, in the north, areas of the Arctic have 50 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) warmer than the expected average. Scientists claim these temperatures are freakish with a danger warning for the future.

As Antarctica nears autumn, weather stations situated there recorded unusual heat in the last week. The simmering heat spell has been recorded at the Concordia station, two miles above sea level. The Concordia station recorded a temperature of about 10 degrees Fahrenheit (-12.2 degrees Celsius) and this is 70 degrees warmer than the average, reported Associated Press. Similarly, the Vostok station, which is even higher than the Concordia, recorded a 27 degree Fahrenheit higher than the average. Vostok is also in Antarctica.

Usually, Antarctica sees temperatures ranging from minus 50 to minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit at this time of the year; that is the early fall season in the southernmost point of the planet. Notably, for the last 65 years, during this season (March and April), temperatures have never reached beyond minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit, said Stefano Di Battista, a journalist and a climatology researcher, in his Twitter handle. This time Concordia had around 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

Commenting on the rather unexpected and unusual event, Jonathan Wille, a postdoc researcher at the Université Grenoble Alpes, wrote,

This is when temperatures should be rapidly falling since the summer solstice in December. This is a Pacific Northwest 2021 heatwave kind of event. Never supposed to happen.

Along with this, another alarming situation could also be observed in Antarctica. Sea ice levels in the region hit their lowest ever coverage area in the past 43 years. The ice levels fell below 2 million square kilometres. However, according to experts, the low ice levels could be attributable to another phenomenon: the development of a low-pressure system in the inner peninsula in 2021. “It’s very likely that what we’re seeing now is within the range of variability that we’ve seen over the last century. So even this record low, we probably have seen that before in the last century. We’re seeing just year-to-year fluctuations in the longer-term context,”—explained Ryan Fogt, a climate scientist and an associate professor at Ohio University.

At the opposite of Antarctica, the Arctic region at the northernmost point of Earth also witnessed an unusual soar in temperature. It was found to be 50 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average. This is also strange for the region during the early spring season. The temperature was 6 degrees higher than the average yearly temperature, and the north pole crept to the melting point. “They are opposite seasons. You don’t see the north and the south (poles) both melting at the same time. It’s definitely an unusual occurrence,”—commented Walt Meier, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

While the world is concerned about climate change and almost irreversible global warming, the polar region is specifically important owing to their sensitive climatic conditions. Climate change’s impact is seen even more rapidly than the rest of the world. The Arctic region is a subject of the phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. The melting of glaciers and sea ice trigger a feedback loop in the region which cause warming to continue. Significantly, the Arctic is warming twice or thrice as faster as the rest of the world.

Antarctica, on the other hand, appears more complicated. Unlike the north pole, it has a thin stretch of land in the form of the Antarctic peninsula and is warming five times faster than the rest of the world.

The unusual warming in both poles is alarming when artificial climate change does not appear to be under control. Experts believe that some of the impacts will be irreversible even if human activities are stalled immediately.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/23/record- ... of-danger/

***************************************

MARCH 23, 2022
‘She Intended Not to Ignore Things Related to Climate, as There Is Pressure to Do’
CounterSpin interview with David Arkush on Fed climate veto
JANINE JACKSON

Janine Jackson interviewed Public Citizen’s David Arkush about fossil fuels’ Federal Reserve veto for the March 18, 2022, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.



Janine Jackson: The disjuncture between what really day-to-day matters in the lives of people around the country—food, shelter, work you can live on—and what elected officials do is the stuff of political science.

We all know that the connection isn’t direct. People want healthcare, for instance. When they have to choose between their medicine and keeping the lights on, nobody is saying, “Yay, this is a choice I made that redounds overall to my benefit.”

But when it comes to media coverage, people and their needs and their problems often get subsumed into an abstract story about economic interests and industry and government and blah, blah, blah.

Journalism could provide a different connection between human needs and policy decisions, that might spur action rather than frustration. And it seems as though a failure to connect those dots is part of why a candidate for a position at the Federal Reserve, Sarah Bloom Raskin, had her nomination derailed because her record indicated that she recognized that climate disruption is real, and will have economic impacts.

So what happened here is the sausage is being made, and there’s a reason that the joke is that you don’t want to see it. But we have to see it if we want to be the democracy of, by and for the people we claim we want to be.

David Arkush is the managing director of Public Citizen’s climate program, and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. He joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome to CounterSpin, David Arkush.

David Arkush: Thanks, Janine. Thanks for having me on.

Image
Sarah Bloom Raskin (cc photo: New America)

JJ: Let’s start at the center here. Sarah Bloom Raskin was up for Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision. She was confirmed by the White House, obviously, but by others as well. So what happened?

DA: That’s a great question. And you know, your introduction had me thinking, there’s one thing worse than seeing how the sausage gets made, and that is seeing it fail to be made up close.

This is a job—I’ll start with maybe a little background on what this role is. So the position of vice chair for supervision at the Federal Reserve was created after the financial crisis of 2008. When Congress passed the big bill, the Dodd/Frank Wall Street Reform Act, one of the pieces in it was creating this position at the Fed, so that there would be a high-up official at the Fed monitoring the safety of banks and monitoring the stability of the financial system, and looking out, looking at the horizon for emerging risks, and figuring out what to do about it.

Sarah Bloom Raskin—it is hard to think of a person who is better suited to that job. She’s the most qualified person in the country that I know of by far. She is a former state bank regulator. She was the supervisor of banks in Maryland and the top financial regulator in Maryland. She has already been on the board of the Federal Reserve, which, this vice chair for supervision is one of the governors on the board; she’s already been one. And she was the No. 2 person at the Treasury. So she has high-level experience.

At Treasury, she led work on cybersecurity risks to finance, so she’s actually also the nation’s leading expert on cybersecurity threats to financial institutions and to financial stability, something that would squarely be within her jurisdiction at the Federal Reserve, and something that is a really heightened concern right now, given the war between Russia and Ukraine. We are actually facing heightened cyber threats on critical infrastructure in this country, including banks and the financial system. So it’s really hard to imagine somebody who’s more qualified.

Now, one of the things that somebody who is that qualified and that expert thinks about, in the context of making sure that we have a sound economy and a sound financial system right now, is climate. It is impossible to ignore that climate harms are imposing really severe costs on a lot of sectors, and a lot of whole states, and a lot of geographies. There are insurers who are pulling out of insuring homes in large regions of California. These things have major economic impacts, and it’s also hard to ignore that there are a lot of climate-related risks to financial institutions and to financial stability.

And that is basically a consensus view among most financial regulators these days. And Sarah Bloom Raskin also agrees with that view, and was very clear that she intended not to ignore things that were related to climate, as there is often pressure to do in the United States, because of our bizarre politics and the power of the fossil fuel industry, but that she would look at those risks the same way she would look at any others, and take them on if need be, in regard to how they affect banks and how they affect finance.

Image
David Arkush: “Oil and gas has, for a long time, pressured financial regulators, pressured bank regulators, to adopt essentially biased rules.”

JJ: Which businesses and banks should want, right? I mean, they’re reality-based organizations, as we understand them to be. So what was it about what she said, matter-of-factly, about climate disruption and its impact that was the problem?

DA: This is what’s surprising and unusual about this situation. Sarah Bloom Raskin, in addition to all the other things I have said, has already been confirmed twice by the US Senate—she wouldn’t have been on the Fed board and she wouldn’t have been the No. 2 at Treasury if she hadn’t been—twice confirmed unanimously. And this time around, she also had broad bipartisan support. She’s supported by consumer groups, by civil rights groups, by unions, by many businesses, and by banks—by big banks and small banks. It’s a really uncommon thing to find somebody who virtually everybody agrees is actually extremely expert, competent and reasonable.

There was one major group that does not agree, and that is the oil and gas industry. And not even the whole oil and gas industry. It’s interesting, having seen this fight up close: The large oil companies didn’t bother. It was small oil and gas companies who were opposed.

And it’s not hard to figure out why. If you pay attention to these issues, a lot of the smaller oil and gas companies are in pretty shaky financial condition. Some of them have never been profitable, over the 10- or 15-year history of the company. And oil and gas markets are really volatile, everybody knows this; prices go up, prices go down; and it’s really hard for them to get loans, in part because a combination of how, basically, the companies are just really risky, and all the financial institutions know it, and they have trouble getting bank loans.

And so, oil and gas has, for a long time, pressured financial regulators, pressured bank regulators, to adopt essentially biased rules that either give them, directly, special bailouts or favors, or pressure banks to lend to companies that the banks think are too risky.

And one thing that was clear about Sarah Bloom Raskin was she was not going to do that. She was going to take a measured, serious, expert approach. And she’s well within the mainstream of what any honest and competent regulator should and would do, and frankly, most do, particularly on the one side of the aisle here.

But she had said some things about recognizing the threats from climate risks to financing to banks, and her opponents just seized on that, and I think we all know what often happens in US politics if you start painting somebody as a climate radical. She very quickly lost, in the US Senate, the support of basically every Republican and Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Ultimately, that was the end of her nomination, basically on the basis of her having viewpoints that are completely mainstream and reasonable. The chair of the Fed, who is a Republican, Chair Powell, agrees with and is about to sail through his confirmation. But in her case, they were used basically to smear her and treat her like she was some kind of radical.
Manchin’s Coal Conflict of Interest Not of Interest to Corporate News
Image
Joe Manchin, arguably the single biggest obstacle to Congressional action on climate, whose deep conflicts of interest rarely interest corporate journalists (FAIR.org, 7/27/21)
JJ: Let me just ask you, finally, for your thoughts about media coverage, because when I looked at the coverage, I saw a reference to Bloom Raskin as “embattled.” And when you hear that word, or that kind of language, it makes it sound as though, you know, the jury was out, it was kind of 50/50, and she was on the losing side. What you’re telling me is, there was a whole lot of support and understanding, and then there was a faction that was able to whipsaw the rest. So if people are reading journalism, media coverage about this, and they want to really understand what happened, maybe “embattled” isn’t going to really tell them the story in the way that they should understand it.

So I would just ask you, finally, what would you like to see journalists doing more of or less of in terms of, not just this nomination, but in terms of the relationship between climate disruption and financial regulation?

DA: Well, that’s interesting. It is a big topic. I think that people do need to hear more about it and understand more about it. It couldn’t be more obvious; again, it’s very quickly becoming totally uniform among financial regulators to be taking it seriously, and lots of them are acting on the issue. And, frankly, a lot of the private sector is, a lot of the big banks are, a lot of the big asset managers are.

I think the coverage has been improving. Frankly, it’s a new area; a lot of people haven’t heard about the idea that there’s a connection between climate change and finance, although the moment you start talking to people about it, it’s obvious that it’s right, and there is, and that we ought to be thinking about it. And so it’s catching on very quickly.

But I think, yeah, increased awareness of that, increased awareness of the seriousness of the risks and what needs to be done. And that’s around the issue in general.

And then I think, in terms of this type of political fight, I started thinking toward the end of it that the US Senate is such a strange institution. And it’s so undemocratic. In a society that has such a long and proud tradition of democracy in so many ways, that is not one of them. And almost everything that happens there needs to be painstakingly contextualized as happening in this sort of bizarro alternate reality.

There’s a real world in which someone like Sarah Bloom Raskin is supported by basically everybody, including the banks that she’s going to regulate, and including consumer advocates and civil rights groups and unions; and then there’s the bizarro world of the US Senate, where the representation does not match the population of the United States, what they do does not match public opinion in the United States, and they operate under bizarre rules.

And, yeah, what happens there, it’s like a parallel universe. I think sometimes things that happen there get treated as if they’re real world things, or that they reflect real opinions, or that they reflect where the American people are. And I think that does some real harm, because it’s actually important for us to understand how that institution actually works, and frankly, in my view, how broken it is, and how much we need to be taking on that issue as well.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with David Arkush; he’s managing director of Public Citizen’s climate program. They’re online at Citizen.org. David Arkush, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

DA: Thank you, Janine.

https://fair.org/home/she-intended-not- ... ure-to-do/

Nice dovetailing, huh?

They will not give an inch until every possibility of profit is exhausted, but we'll probably all be dead, along with most metazoans, by the time that happens.

No slack, no forgiveness, up against the wall...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:32 pm

ARMING SCIENTISTS AND SOCIETY FOR THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Posted by W. T. Whitney, Jr. | Mar 14, 2022
March 14, 2022

Image

“[O]ur obligation as scientists [is] to make sure we fight the good fight and ensure the fruits of science are not monopolized by the powerful and the elite.” — Richard Levins



Three scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are discouraged. New Zealanders Bruce C. Glavovic and Timothy F. Smith and Australian Iain White criticize governments for not doing enough about climate change. They are calling upon fellow IPCC scientists to no longer conduct research on climate change. “More scientific reports, another set of charts,” Glavovic exclaims; “I mean, seriously, what difference is that going to make?”

Hundreds of IPCC scientists provide the United Nations periodically with reports on adverse impacts of climate change. The most recent report, issued in February, details rising seas, terrible droughts, atypical weather events, thawing permafrost, dying forests, and massive displacement of populations.

Once atmospheric warming exceeds 1.5 degrees Celsius over 19th century levels, changes will be irreversible. The increase so far is 1.1 degrees Celsius. Surveyed, 60 percent of scientists working on an earlier IPCC report agreed that temperatures would rise almost three percent by the end of the present century.

The three scientists published a statement in Climate and Development in December, 2021. They pointed out that “indicators of adverse global change rise year upon year. …[T]he time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.”

Climate scientists have contributed to people’s general awareness of the issues. Lots of people understand that fossil fuels, when burned, generate gaseous emissions which, in excess, cause atmospheric warming. Many people are more or less aware that as consumption and industrial production increase, emissions rise too. In their appeal, the three protesting scientists are, in effect, be reaching out to the public and politicians, as if to spark a resistance movement within society.

There is a side story that hasn’t resonated yet. Capital requires new wealth to be created in order to survive. That only happens as long as production and consumption are increasing. Therefore, with capitalism in charge, rising emissions are a secondary matter.

That’s why those three scientists seeking to renegotiate a science-society contract are spoiling for a fight that, in essence, is anti-capitalist. Unsurprisingly, the prospect is slim of allies flocking to their cause from either the scientific community or the public sector. But of the two, the scientists may be more receptive. What follows here is a look at the potential for collaboration among scientists.

Normally scientists don’t need a supporting cast. They often generate information that is applauded – for example, research findings that contribute to high technology consumer items. Even the science behind weapons manufacture gets a pass.

The public praises most scientific investigation involving natural and biologic processes, notably vaccine research, novel therapies for cancer or inherited illnesses, and the development of antibiotics. For instance, advances leading to antibiotic treatment of streptococcal infection led directly to the eradication of terrible afflictions of heart values, joints, and/or the brain. Everyone benefited.

But something went wrong in other healthcare situations. Scientific findings were not implemented, or only partially so. Population groups were excluded, as per decision-making at the highest levels of government and society. As regards the climate crisis, everyone is excluded.

Scientists found that ingested lead interferes with enzyme activities and thereby injures the brains of children, and causes other disastrous ailments. In 2014, the majority Black population of Flint, Michigan learned that their drinking water contained high levels of lead. Eight years later, lead levels are down, but still potentially toxic. Epidemiologists say there is no safe level of lead in a child’s blood.

The high death rates of African-American infants are an abomination. Specialists of many disciplines long ago showed how babies stay healthy. Their mothers have to be healthy, well-educated and well-nourished. Ready access to competent healthcare for mothers and babies is essential. But African American babies have long died at rates two to three times higher than those of white babies.

Maybe scientists investigating natural and biologic processes – our climate scientists, for example – and scientists concerned with how society works can join forces. Both sets of scientists study realities involving either matter, natural and biological processes, or collective human aspirations and actions. They study the interaction of real things, and how things change.

Similarities in methodological approach are one basis for scientists to collaborate in developing joint projects, enabling the general population to understand the role of science in society, and firming up implementation of research findings.

Scientists within the Marxist tradition look for linkages and commonalities. According to historian Helena Sheehan, “The history of marxism in relation to science is extraordinarily dense and dramatic. From the beginning, marxism took science extremely seriously, not only for its economic promise in building a socialist society, but for its revelatory power in understanding the world. Marxism has made the strongest claims of any intellectual tradition before or since about the socio-historical character of science.”

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels incorporated findings from the physical and biological sciences into their political analyses. Here is Marx:

“Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centers, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population, on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the circulation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil”.

Here Marx is discussing political power, changing modes of production, human migration from country to city, and the lack of organic waste material formerly produced by animals and people – which accounts for reduced soil fertility. His reference point is the enclosure movement in 19th century England. Wealthy bourgeoisie bought land, created large parcels, and surrounded them with walls to allow for grazing. Villagers and country people, now deprived of animals and land and unable to feed themselves, moved to cities and became factory workers.

This sequence of developments Marx characterized as a “metabolic rift.” In developing his analysis, Marx gained an assist from scientist Justus von Liebig who studied agricultural chemistry and plant growth.

Marx declared that, “Humans live from nature, i.e.: nature is our body, and we must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if we are not to die. And “man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature … man is a part of nature.”

Frederick Engels was a kindred spirit. He asks:

“What did the Spanish planters in Cuba, who burned down forests the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertilizer for one generation of very highly profitable coffee trees, care that the tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the now unprotected upper stratum of the soil, leaving behind only bare rock? In relation to nature, as to society, the present mode of production is predominantly concerned only about the first, tangible success …Thus at every step we are reminded that … [we], belong to nature, and exist in its midst.”

We propose that scientists studying natural phenomena and processes are ripe for collaborative relations with social scientists, including Marxist investigators. As noted, they share similar methodologies and most of them a dedication to human well-being. Growing numbers of scientists, both kinds, are very likely primed to accept that a linkage runs from wealth accumulation, to perennially increasing production, to rising emissions, to atmospheric warming.

Together with the public, scientists need to realize that capital is bound to make its peace with planetary warming, no matter the disaster ahead. Aware that their research impinges on human lives, a few scientists maybe will turn to political activism.

Influenced by the worsening climate crisis, those social scientists receptive to Marxist analysis would increasingly familiarize themselves with issues involving the biologic and natural sciences. One envisions collaboration among the different kinds of scientists and even common struggle in the political arena. Anticipating the new society, revolutionaries within the ranks of scientists, acting together now, would gain a head start in building scientific institutions that serve the people.

Discussion here touching upon social transformation is incomplete without defining the political role of working people. They are the protagonists of the change to come and of rescue during the climate crisis. The desperate situation now has an urgency and sweep extending far beyond burdens falling specifically upon the working class, like economic exploitation and plunder. Now, the world’s entire population may be heading to ruin.

Yet in times past, the working class has shown itself capable of carrying out social revolutions amid other circumstances of generalized disaster. This time the working class, organized and motivated, could take the lead in the climate crisis while brandishing, as before, some sort of an all-encompassing demand. In the Cuban and Chinese revolutions, the working class called for national liberation; in the Russian revolutions of 1917, for “peace, land, and bread.”

https://mltoday.com/arming-scientists-a ... te-crisis/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:21 pm

The Danger of Fossil Fascism
March 26, 2022
Understanding the growing combination of racism, climate science denial, and fossil fuel promotion

Image

On the Danger of Fossil Fascism
Verso Books, 2021


reviewed by Martin Empson

As regular readers of my blog will be aware, I think that Andreas Malm, even where I disagree with key points of his argument, is one of the most stimulating Marxist authors on environmental politics. So it was with eager anticipation that I looked forward to this new publication “one the dangers of fossil fascism” that Malm has co-authored with the network the Zetkin Collective, a group of scholars and activists “working on the political ecology of the far right.”

The book does multiple things. It opens with a study of the far-right and fascist movements and looks at their “anti-climate politics” and asks “what would it mean to live in a world both hotter and further to the right” than it is today. It argues that the far-right’s fixation with anti-climate views is closely tied to its anti-immigration perspective and the way that developing capitalism associated technology (and particularly fossil fuel technologies) with white supremacy. The authors argue in the introduction:

“[The book] traces lineages of resurfacing ideas and contends that white skin and black fuel have been coupled for long time — indeed, machines powered by fossil fuels were infused with racism from the very first moment of their global deployment. The European incubator for skin and fuel was an empire… It is out contention that one cannot understand recent developments [of the far right] or their possible continuation and aggravation, without such a longer view.”

Much of the first part of White Skin, Black Fuel is a study of the reality of far-right politics. This links various aspects of conspiracy theory (white replacement) and Islamic takeover, with wider hatreds of immigrants and Muslims with anti-scientific and views that can only be described as pro-fossil fuel industry on climate change. The discussion of the specifics of these ideas are detailed and for anti-fascist readers they are at times depressing ∞ detailing the extent to which they have become mainstream. Shockingly the growth of the far right and the mainstreaming of their arguments around climate and immigration have pulled the center left towards them. The authors note, for instance, that in Denmark, the social democrats “came close to another line of reasoning: in a warming world, it is even more imperative to patrol borders and send people home” as a result of the growth of the far-right.

Quite why the far-right deny climate change is superficially difficult to explain. Climate denial goes deep into their core politics, and there is a particular animosity to wind turbines. Indeed the authors note that there is a “striking similarity to the hatred of minarets, mosques and calls to prayers”. However its not just climate denial and dislike of renewable energy. The book shows how there is a general “defense of fossil capital” by the far-right. Part of the explanation for this lies, the authors contend, in the way that fascism in the 1920s and 1930s evolved out of a modernist view that celebrated technology and the speed of cars and aircraft. It need not detain us here, but there are some fascinating sections on how the Mussolini and Hitler regime courted and enjoyed the automobile and aircraft industries. We should mention Henry Ford in passing too. Bringing it back to the modern day, and discussing the Hungarian government, the book comments:

“The climate policies of one of the most notorious far-right governments in Europe were.. primarily geared to fossil capital in general. They were as yet rarely couched in terms of denial, but rather hidden in official indifference to the issue, paired with the all-consuming passion.”

Similar ideas are exhibited by far-right politicians in Poland and Germany. For the Hungarian government, electoral success meant “protecting the car industry, resisting emissions cuts, ignoring climate change, vilifying Muslims and Jews and eventually falling in line with denial: the early twenty-first century European far right in power.”

Part of the reason behind far-right denial is the way that they articulate liberal climate policies as being about attacking ordinary people: an excuse for taxes, or taking away the person freedom to drive a car. In my opinion, shared I think by the authors, the need to articulate the frustrations of the disenfranchised middle class by fascists and the far-right means they can use green politics (as pushed by the mainstream) as an attack on ordinary people and, in turn, give them something to rail against.

The consequences of such an approach are horrific:

“most of the forces we have inspected have associated the struggle against climate change with black and other non white people — it’s for them, not us: ‘Let them drown’ is here not a faint, undefined propensity: it is the policy. The choice of apocalypse — the real threat to the world is their presence among us ∞ aggravates it further. But the far right would scarcely be able to advance this message if it did not have a wider indifference to work on and, as it were, mobilize. We can reformulate this as a a general hypothesis: the anti-climate politics of the far right is now a phenomenon of such rank that it must stand on the shoulders of a much wider and broader set of relations of the kind that we normally refer to as ‘racism’.”

Essentially, as the far right see the world, white people are good, intelligent, technologically developed and black people are backward and primitive. This racism dovetails with a capitalist fossil fuel worldview that suggests that the world can be remade in the interests of white people and that black people are a barrier to this. They explore the evolution of this world view through a fascinating discussion of the centrality of steam to the colonial project particularly of Britain.

The authors conclude:

“The far right tends to cultivate a ‘producerist’ notion of white people as generators of wealth and non-whites as parasites: it works hand in glove with unswerving loyalty to the productive forces (literally) in question…. the relation between the contemporary far right, energy, climate and nature cannot be understood in abstraction from the history of modern racism and how it has related to these things. And steam was only just the beginning.”

There’s a final, fascinating, discussion on why fascism is on the rise today. The authors point out that classical Marxism understands fascism as a reaction to revolutionary force or potentiality. But this is not “actual” today. They suggest that it is precisely the weakness of revolutionary politics that opens the door to fascism by not being able to articulate an alternative to the chaos of capitalism. Its an interesting argument which I will have to think further on. But it does seem to fit some reality. The world of 21st century capitalism feels out of control — war in Ukraine, climate crisis, economic disaster. Few movements are articulating a progressive alternative. In the face of this chaos, fascism is offering people to blame and giving a confidence to sections of society feeling the blows of capital. White Skin, Black Fuel offers few cheering moments, but its analysis will help arm those trying to understand the far-right in order to offer an alternative.

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2022/0 ... l-fascism/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:50 pm

Image
On the mobilisation against the Cop26 summit in Glasgow last November (Picture: Andrew McGowan)

Capitalism’s crimes against nature — interview with author Jeff Sparrow

Australian socialist Jeff Sparrow is a writer, broadcaster and Guardian Australia columnist. He spoke to climate activist Martin Empson about his book, Crimes Against Nature—Capitalism and Global Heating.

I want to start with the central theme of your book—capitalism. It’s a subject that is increasingly part of discussion in the environmental movement. So could begin by talking about how you approach capitalism and the environment in the book?

I was someone who first encountered Marxist ideas at university in the late 1980s. At that point, the way it was presented implied Marxism had almost nothing to say about the environment or the natural world. You could be interested in Marxism or you could be interested in the environment, but the two things had nothing in common.

Later I went back and reread Karl Marx’s classics under the influence of a new generation of Marxist environmental thinkers such as John Bellamy Foster. It was only then that I understood the crushingly obvious point that Marxism is profoundly an engagement with the natural world. In some ways, that’s what materialism as a theory means. That really changed the way that I thought both about Marxism and, more importantly, environmentalism.

Increasingly people concerned about climate change—a huge and growing proportion of the population—recognise that climate change is a result of a systemic issue. But, to really understand how that systemic issue manifests itself, you have to have some kind of understanding of capitalism.

This is one of the arguments that I wanted to make in the book. You can’t really talk about climate change, and you certainly can’t develop a credible solution to climate change, without understanding the nature of capitalism. And how it is that capitalism generates these destructive processes that now put the planet as a whole at risk.

In your book you explore this partly by discussing how capitalism, as it develops, transforms social relations. Tell us about this.

One of the motivations for writing this book was to overcome the despair that prevents many people engaging with climate change. Even people who are profoundly political often find it very hard to read articles about climate change, because it’s just so grindingly awful. If you are a socialist, you are accustomed to dealing with awful things, but there’s something particularly horrible about a species disappearing or the slow-moving devastation of entire regions. If you are a political person, you have to overcome that despair because it is deeply disempowering.

So I wanted to tackle that problem. That meant coming to terms with some of the theoretical issues. Take the concept of “wilderness”, which is often something that people use to define the environment. There is a kind of common sense environmentalism that’s about defending the wilderness—defined as ecologically pristine—against the encroachment of human beings.

But I argue in the book that, if this is how you understand the environmental task, you’re setting yourself an impossible goal. And that’s because that is the whole point of the Anthropocene—a geological epoch defined by human activity. There is no longer any part of the planet that is entirely untouched by human beings. Once you start to think about that, you can extend the argument a lot further.

Look, for instance, at the English landscape. Elements that we think of as being wilderness are, in fact, the result of a long engagement by human beings. People alter the landscape as they alter the kinds of societies in which they live.

So that relationship between human beings and nature is not a simple opposition. But, in fact, it’s a kind of dialectical relationship with humans and nature fundamentally shaping each other.

This isn’t just a theoretical point—it has political implications. If we recognise humans have always altered the environment, it opens up the possibility of a new environmentalism, which isn’t simply trying to hold up the destruction of wilderness. It’s about potentially making the planet better, establishing a different kind of relationship with nature. That’s a much more hopeful way of looking at the planetary crisis. It opens up the possibility that environmentalism can achieve something good, rather than just make the place less bad.

How did capitalism transform our relationship with nature?

The development of capitalism changes people’s relationship with nature in a very fundamental way. As an Australian I am very conscious of living in a country founded as a colonial settler state. The European invasion had a wrenching effect on the indigenous people who had lived in Australia for 40,000 or 50,000 years prior to white settlement.

It is really important for people with a background like mine to realise that there was a culture that lived in a very different relationship with nature. They were not “noble savages” that lived lightly on the land. As new scholarship shows, indigenous people fundamentally altered the Australian continent. But they were able to live in a way that made the ecology richer and far more dynamic. That’s because it wasn’t determined by the profit-driven priorities of capitalism, but instead was shaped by tradition and culture.

So we have before us an example that really puts the light to the claims of the right wing. If people did that in the past, then there is no reason why we cannot do it in the future. What is stopping us are the capitalist relationships, the social relations introduced into Australia in 1788.

After the white invasion, the landscape of the continent changed almost beyond recognition within the space of several years—a very brief timescale. There was tremendous erosion with the fertile plains, disappearing under the feet of white settlers. This was not to do with technology or overpopulation. It has to do with capitalist relations that prevented the kind of land management that indigenous people had previously relied upon.

Indigenous people were very conscious of, and worked with, a whole series of natural cycles that were destroyed. It’s an important point when it comes to combating that sort of right wing slander about the way that people lived. But, as I said before, it’s also crucial because if it happened in the past, there’s no reason why it can’t happen in the future.

Now, I’m not suggesting Australia is going to return to a pre-industrial society. But if indigenous people were able to manage the land in a sustainable fashion for tens of thousands of years, you would think that modern science and technology should make that process easier, not harder. So why is it that we can’t maintain a sustainable relationship in the way that indigenous people did prior to white settlement? Well, the answer is capitalism.

Today, production is not driven by custom, traditional law or an understanding of what’s best for the environment, it is driven by the demands of profit. When those profit relations were introduced to Australia, they had a catastrophic effect on indigenous people and on the landscape as a whole. Of course, there’s a tendency for some people on the left to romanticise indigenous culture, in an unhelpful way. In the book, I instead emphasise some of the parallels with the process of capitalist development that happened in England, which lead to white settlement in Australia.

The development of capitalism in England meant a fundamentally different relationship with the land. It also produced mass unemployment and criminality, which led to the need to transport people to Australia. Working class people in England had their traditional relationship with their village or region completely smashed by enclosures—when common land was seized by landowners and capitalist farmers—and the imposition of wage labour—having to sell your labour for a wage to survive. This is something which most people were entirely unaccustomed to.

A similar process happens again with the introduction of capitalism in Australia. It is fascinating to read the accounts of how indigenous people in Australia experienced the imposition of wage labour. Again and again, you find the colonial masters complaining that indigenous people didn’t understand the concept of wages. And they would just work for a little bit, then they would leave. It draws attention to the fact that, prior to capitalism, indigenous people enjoyed a much higher standard of living than after capitalism. And that their relationship with nature was a tremendous source of meaning. They saw wage labour as tremendously empty and soulless. The idea that you would work as instructed by a single master just did not make any sense to them.

The complaints made by the colonial masters in Australia about indigenous people parallel the complaints made by early industrialists in England about the Scots, the Irish and the other rural communities. In both cases, the bosses say, “These people don’t understand. They don’t want to work. They’ll turn out for a while, then they’ll stop working.”

So rather than being a god-ordained condition, wage labour is something relatively new—and everywhere it was imposed, it was experienced as horrendous. The way that people understood themselves as human beings, and the way they understood nature as well, was changed.

You approach some of these subjects in your book quite differently to other writers. There is a fascinating chapter on the way that car culture came to dominate over sustainable public transport through the actions of the automobile industry, and a chapter on tobacco advertising that draws out an analogy with modern climate denialism. You use the story of Frankenstein to talk about capitalism “out of control” in its relations to nature and people. It is an interesting approach.

I opened with an essay about car culture. One of the arguments I’m trying to tackle is that the environmental crisis is the result of ordinary human beings being greedy and lazy and stupid. They’re so selfish that they are happy to destroy the planet for short‑term gain. Car culture, and particularly American car culture, is the quintessential example of this.

When we think about greedy humans destroying the planet, we think of Americans with big cars that they insist on driving everywhere. But if you look at the development of car culture in the U.S., you encounter a history riven by really intense struggles. I had no idea before I started researching stuff that there was a thriving tram system throughout the U.S. in the 1890s, which was destroyed because it wasn’t profitable. The vehicles were, in many ways, more technologically advanced than internal combustion engines.

Again and again technological innovations emerge that have a potential for actually making people’s lives better. Then they are seized by the wealthy and used in ways that make both ordinary people’s lives and the environmental situation worse.

Something else that really jumped out at me was how important arguments around nature were to the early working class. Today, if you are trying to make a case for the centrality of the working class to transforming society, you will be told that working class people hate nature. And that only middle class types care about trees or animals or beautiful landscapes or whatever.

The modern working class was formed out of processes such as the enclosures and a savage, violent dislocation from the land. So, one of the ways ordinary people discussed the new conditions of industrial capitalism was in terms of how their relationship with nature had changed. And how much they hated it. If you read the Chartists—a mass working class movement in 1830s and 40s Britain—you find them saying, “We used to live in a countryside where there were trees. And now we live in this capitalist hell-scape.”

I feel in some ways that dislocation from nature gets normalised in a later stage of capitalism. That’s because separation of the working class from the countryside becomes an established fact.

Today, though, we’re in a somewhat different situation. Climate change and other disasters affect the poorest and the most oppressed more than they do the wealthy. And so it’s increasingly a part of working class life to be affected by things like hurricanes and floods, or having to work outside in freak climatic conditions.

In the book, I discuss the Amazon factories. You read these horrific stories of people working in hot warehouses where there are ambulances out the front to pick people up when they collapse. This is something that climate change is making worse and worse, directly affecting working class people’s lives in a way that perhaps we might not have expected a couple of generations ago. So I think there’s an interesting kind of return of nature as a concern for working class people, almost forced upon them by the crisis.

Do you think that the Covid pandemic has helped this process?

Covid is not a direct result of climate change. But at the same time, it’s not something that can be separated from the broader ecological catastrophe, which climate change is a part of. Because land has been cleared and urban settlements are spreading, human beings are increasingly coming into contact with ecologies that have never had any experience of human beings.
This is leading to viruses spreading more often, and Covid is part of that process. So you can link Covid to the environmental crisis—and it is a very clear example of the way that the environmental crisis affects the working class and poor people far more than anyone else. So the relationship between the environmental catastrophe and class became clearer and clearer.

Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people grasp that relationship. But we have all seen statistics about the number of billionaires whose wealth has gone up to stratosphere levels during Covid. Whereas, if you’re someone who’s working for takeaway delivery company Door Dash or in the precarious sector, you were shafted during the pandemic. So we’re in a moment now where class is becoming more and more central to the environmental catastrophe. If you don’t understand that, then I think you’re incapable of responding.

Two of the book’s chapters take up issues of the environment and racism. One looks at how the early environmental movement in the U.S. was shaped by right wing ideas that persist today. You say, for instance, that “for many African-Americans, the outdoors invokes bigotry, the Klan and racism violence”. The other chapter looks at the myths of overpopulation. Can you summarise these issues?

The environmental movement has a complex history but in the U.S., in particular, it was shaped by a right wing romanticism about the past. It often drew an explicit parallel between invasive weeds and feral animals and immigrants or people from “undesirable” races. Some of the first and most important environmental campaigns in the U.S. were led by people who were eugenicists and extreme racists. Most environmentalists today are, of course, anti-racists, but some of the theoretical ideas from the bad old days still remain.

If you write or talk about the environmental crisis, invariably, someone will come up to you at the end and say, “Well, that’s all very well. But the real problem is that there are too many people.” It is an argument that makes intuitive sense at a really simplistic level. If we accept that the world is finite and only so many people can live in a finite space, then the idea that overpopulation is a problem seems like common sense.

Of course, the world doesn’t actually work like that. In the abstract, there is probably a definite number of people that you could cram onto the planet. In the here and now, and in the immediate future, questions of population have nothing to do with how societies are organised.

At the most obvious level, some of the poorest countries in the world have very few people in them. Whereas you can go to an incredibly wealthy city, like New York, where huge numbers of people are crammed into a small space. No one says, “Well, actually, what you need to do is get rid of all of these people and things would be better.” So “populationism” is a simple argument, but a wrong argument. And what’s more it is a right wing argument. I think that’s really important. In the early iterations of population arguments, books like Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb weren’t necessarily obviously from the right, but the right wing dynamics of it quickly began to develop.

With populationism, on the most basic level, the question always becomes who are the surplus people who need to go? Of course, it’s never the populationist campaigners themselves. No one ever says, “There are too many people in the world. Therefore, my family and I are going off to the euthanasia booths”. They always blame someone else.

When it’s not directed against people in the Global South, it’s directed against the teeming masses back home. Then in terms of a specific programme, it is always attached to coercive notions about imposing sterilisation and mandating limits on the number of children people can have. And in countries where this program has been implemented, it’s always had horrific results.

Now, the predictions that have been made by overpopulation theorists are massively disproven. For instance, the rate of population growth is slowing so much that many countries are now talking about the need to increase population.

But it keeps coming back as a zombie argument because it’s one that thrives on despair. It is an argument that says people are the problem, just by existing. Well, that’s not an argument that’s going to appeal as much at a moment where the movement is surging forward, where people are changing the world and opening up new possibilities. It is an argument that becomes much more attractive when people feel despairing about the ability to mobilise the masses. If you do not feel you can mobilise the masses, it is a lot easier to say the masses are a problem.

And it’s connected to arguments about consumerism as well, which goes deep into the DNA of the early environmentalist movement. There’s this notion that the problem is people consuming too much—they’re greedy, they’re lazy. They want their big screen TVs or whatever. It’s a hop, skip and a jump from that to say, people themselves are the problem—not just because of what they do but because they exist.

Infamously, the fascist perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand made this argument explicitly, writing in his manifesto about the need to exterminate immigrants. Likewise, some of the people that Donald Trump drew on in his anti‑immigrant campaign in 2016, had longstanding links to the early environmental movement. They had moved not just to the right, but to the far right, from a populationist perspective.

I should stress the modern environmental movement has done a pretty good job of challenging populationist arguments and driving racists out of the movement. That’s why we’ve only seen the modern far right taking up environmental themes as slogans in a very tentative kind of way. Most of the far right are still climate deniers, but there are various straws in the wind where you can see how this will be a promising aspect for the far right.

Take Australia, which has some of the most atrocious immigration policies anywhere in the world. What are going to be some of the predicted manifestations of climate change in the next few years? A mass exodus of climate refugees from countries all over the world that have been inundated by rising sea levels and catastrophic temperature changes.

What is going to happen when those people arrive in countries like Australia? There will be a renewed push for border security. The problem is that, in some ways, that can seem like a more common sense response to many people because the detention centres and the island gulags are already in place. All the infrastructure of a far right response to climate change already here. You end up with a world of walls, heavily policed city states and the rhetoric becomes environmental rhetoric. “Our country is overloaded. We can’t take any more people. There’s a climate catastrophe. That’s why these people have got to be herded into camps.” I don’t think that that’s a science fiction scenario. I think that, unless we’re able to build a movement, that’s quite a plausible future scenario.

One of the inspiring things about the mobilisation around Cop26 in Britain was the extent to which the movement took up the question of climate refugees.

Yes! Likewise, we’ve just been through the Black Lives Matter movement. According to some estimates, it was the largest ever protest mobilisation in human history—an extraordinary fact given most people’s sense of where we are at politically. The fact that something like that can happen is testament to how unstable the situation is, how quickly things can change.

And, as I try to argue in the book, the environmental crisis is increasingly manifesting itself as part of working class life. So it’s inevitably becoming entwined with working class struggles that might not necessarily seem like climate struggles.

I write about attempts to unionise in Amazon warehouses in the U.S. where the conditions are Dickensian. The implementation of monitoring technology creates factories in some ways worse than 19th century sweatshops when it comes to monitoring what workers do every second of the day. But the people attempting to organise in those places necessarily have to confront Covid and necessarily have to confront the experience of intensified heat. And both of those are connected to the environmental crisis.

You can see a potential where organisation around basic rights to unionise increasingly provide scope to raise environmental demands. It is not inevitable, of course, and depends on the political arguments that people make. But I think you can see how this might unfold in a way that would have seemed impossible 20 years ago. Then there seemed to be such a sort of wall between working class struggles and environmental struggles.

How should socialists engage in the environmental movement?

I think that the socialist movement is learning a lot from the environmental movements. But at the same time I think we also have to be prepared to strongly make the argument that this is a systemic crisis. And say the only way that we are going to solve it is to develop a new relationship between humanity and nature, a fundamentally different mode of production. And that has always been a key socialist demand. Obviously that sounds like quite a maximalist programme. But the stakes are so high now that, in a funny kind of way, if you’re not putting a maximalist program, you don’t seem serious. Nobody believes the climate crisis can be solved by putting your recycling out.

One of the things that makes you book so important is the way you put the working class at the heart of the argument. In particular, the last chapter, which talks about William Morris and the idea of a society based on the democratic planning of the economy. We can learn from the environmental movement, but we, as the revolutionary left, have something to offer–a vision of an alternative society. Can you conclude with your thoughts on this?

To be honest it is the sort of issue that in the past, we might have danced around, and not spelled out very clearly because it sounds too radical, too utopian. It is not a question that can be dodged anymore. We have to actually talk about the different way that the world might be organised. As Bellamy Foster argues, William Morris’ News From Nowhere is a classic of socialist utopianism, but it’s also very clearly and very self-consciously, an environmental utopia.

For Morris, the two things are fundamentally intertwined. His Marxism is in some ways quite idiosyncratic, but he really goes to the core of the problem where he says that, what we need to do is we need to talk about the way that human beings relate to nature. And the way that they relate to nature is through labour. And so how we labour—and, in particular the selling of “labour power”, our ability to work—has profound consequences on our ability to shape the world around us. He presents a vision of a socialist future in which human beings are living and working in a different way—and central to that is the question of planning.

So I talked earlier about how in Australia the way that the land was managed by a whole series of customs and laws and traditions. The vision that Morris puts forward is a management of the land in a more conscious sense— a process where the working population democratically and collectively decides what they want to make, what they want to use, what they want to produce and that’s what they do. As soon as you think about that as a possibility, the climate problem becomes much less thorny. We know what to do to end climate change. We know all the things that have to happen.

We know that we have to shut down coal mines. We know that we have to move away from fossil fuels. We know that we have all these technologies that, in theory, enable us to do all sorts of wonderful things. The problem is that capitalism prevents us from doing so. So if we are able to decide what to do democratically and collectively, the possibilities that open up are just endless.

I quote in the book an extraordinary International Monetary Fund (IMF) paper where economists talk about whales, which sequester large amounts of carbon in their bodies. When whales die, they bring that carbon in the bottom of the ocean and so play a significant role in preventing carbon emissions. So how do the IMF decide to protect them? They say that in order to protect whales we have to decide what a whale is worth so they can be governed by a market which will then work its magic and protect the whales. It sounds absurd, but of course this is the argument that so many mainstream policymakers use when they’re talking about climate.

As I say in the book, if you and I confronted a whale that was in trouble, we wouldn’t set up a market. We would push it back in the water. Once you remove that necessity to create markets to govern everything that humans do, the future opens up. The problem doesn’t seem nearly as hopeless. We have a long way to go to create a workers’ democracy and a planned economy. But I do think that the movement as a whole has to start talking about this.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/28/capital ... st-nature/

There is a certain kind of progressive given to the despair because they say 'human nature' is evil, socialism will never work/is as bad as Nazis, the revolution required might involve violence and be bad for karma or some shit.... Sounds like a secularized version of the doctrine of Original Sin to me.

'People are evil' is the premise of liberalism.

*********************************

Mayan Train Demonstrators Attempt To Stop the Work

Image
Activists from Greenpeace tied to heavy machinery to stop the construction of the Quintana Roo section of the Maya Train railroad. Mar. 28, 2022. | Photo: Twitter/@DobleAlfaRomeo

Published 28 March 2022 (8 hours 43 minutes ago)


According to the Milenio newspaper, on Monday, Greenpeace demonstrators tied themselves to stop the work of the Maya train.

On Monday, the Milenio newspaper reported that activists from Greenpeace, which intended to stop the work of construction in the Quintana Roo section of the Maya Train railroad, tied themselves to heavy machinery. Starting from the municipality of Solidaridad, demonstrators from the environmental organization pretended to remain tethered to the machinery all day.

Recently the federal government has modified the route of section 5 of the railroad, displacing the Cancún-Tulum stretch inland, given the complaints of the business community in Playa del Carmen because of its construction through the center of the coastal resort city. Riots have been emerged both at the site of the deforestation and online, as the jungle has been cleared for the construction of the tracks on the modified route.

According to Greenpeace, demonstrators stated that section 5 was designed to go through the jungle without previous environmental studies. They added the damage caused to flora, fauna and underground rivers in Quintana Roo will be irrevocable, inviting people to sign a Greenpeace petition against the "devastation of the Mayan jungle."

Mexican President López Obrador was called by Aleira Lara, campaigns director for Greenpeace México, for the suspension of the construction of section 5 of his 8 billion dollars signature infrastructure project, which is expected to be complete by 2023 and will run through Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo and Chiapas.


Mayan train. From the jungle and with a giant blanket, Greenpeace calls to suspend works on section 5 | The Universal - The Universal

"As it is planned, this route will fragment, deforest, a strip of animals [and] contaminate … the jungle, the rivers, and the communities," Lara said. Probabilities of Lòpez Obrador suspending the project is very slow, as he rejected the allegations that the Mayan Train project would cause extensive environmental damage and described its opponents as "pseudo-environmentalists."

"In 1,500 kilometers of the train, only 100 hectares [of vegetation] will be affected, mainly weeds. However, at the same time, 200,000 hectares are being reforested; three large natural parks (18,000 hectares) will be created and on the edge of the tracks, rows of flowering trees will be planted," posted President López Obrador on Facebook.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/May ... -0021.html

I was in the region when this project was announced and the birding tour operator I was with was puzzled and outraged that this project was designed from the start to benefit the deep pockets: hotel chains, international tourism companies and so forth, leaving the small vendors like himself out in the cold. The same guy was incensed that native people from outside the immediate region were given concessions that he, a Texan, couldn't get. Liberals are funny like that.

This ALMO guy, elected as some sort of progressive is just another 'classic' liberal wherein 'liberality' of the government is almost entirely directed towards the bourgeoisie. He is, however, a nationalist in this regard, as much as a President of Mexico can be given the Hegemon to the north.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:52 pm

China's green transition matters to the world
By Ani Dasgupta | CHINA DAILY | Updated: 2022-04-02 07:07

Image

LI MIN/CHINA DAILY

Today, climate change is impacting every place. Last year saw a record number of climate-induced weather disasters-from forest fires, droughts and heat waves to floods in Europe and China-that affected more than 3.4 billion people, or 40 percent of the global population. The need for real, lasting climate solutions has never been more urgent. Will 2022 be the year when we reach a tipping point for climate action?

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt lives and livelihoods, it has also disrupted economies and supply chains across the world. In 2020, the year when the pandemic broke out, carbon dioxide emissions declined because of a slowdown in economic activity. That prompted many to assume that declining emissions would become the new trend, leading to green recovery. But that did not happen, for as soon as economic activities resumed to capacity in 2021, global emissions increased.

The latest report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes clear that over the last decade we have allowed global greenhouse gas emissions to rise faster than ever before. The need to mitigate emissions and adapt to climate impacts grows day by day.

Yet 2021 also saw many bright spots to keep the 1.5 C goal within reach, including commitments by countries, cities and companies to reduce their emissions and de-carbonize their operations. A total of 155 countries submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (UN climate action plans to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts), 83 countries announced net-zero targets, and the G7 economies and China vowed to stop overseas financing of coal. Similarly, more than 1,000 cities agreed to set net-zero emissions targets and over 2,000 companies committed to set science-based net-zero targets. All this signals a massive shift, which we could not have imagined even a couple of years ago.

This year of commitments culminated at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP 26) in November 2021, where we witnessed a series of high-level commitments to halt deforestation, cut methane emissions, increase electrification of vehicles, reduce coal consumption and more. Collectively, they signal a momentum to deliver the systemic changes needed across sectors to put the world on a more sustainable path.

Every degree matters. Before the Paris Agreement was signed, the world was on track to reach nearly 4.0 C, a recipe for the catastrophic effects of climate change. Through the power of collective global action, current policy commitments to the Paris Agreement can keep temperature rise below 2.8 C, and if all net-zero emissions pledges are achieved, it would likely keep temperature rise below 1.9 C compared with pre-industrial levels. We are still not where we need to be to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, but with continued efforts to increase ambition and make commitments a reality, we know how to get there.

So the big question this year is: Will leaders of countries, businesses and cities turn their commitments into action?

We have only eight years to cut emissions in half by 2030 and just a few decades to reach net-zero emissions by midcentury. The path to net-zero is not easy, but it is possible. To make net-zero commitments credible, leaders must act quickly to match the urgency of the moment, take verifiable actions that align with 1.5 C temperature rise, and communicate progress transparently to build trust and solidarity.

Many of the G20 economies are already taking action, which is essential because about 70 percent of global emissions come from these economies. The European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan have turned their net-zero commitments into law. China has vowed to peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. If just the G20 economies achieve their climate action targets, including net-zero goals, the world can keep global temperature rise between 1.7 C and 1.8 C.

The G20 economies are expected to meet in Bali, Indonesia, later this year and should take the opportunity to set even more ambitious targets to build a greener future. For example, the G20 economies can work together to help third-party countries-especially least-developed countries-combat and adapt to climate change. This is especially important because the latter have contributed the least to climate change but are its worst victims.

Climate action will only be effective if we pay close attention to improving the lives and livelihoods of the people. For example,760 million people, or 13 percent of the global population, still do not have access to electricity. Providing clean electricity for these communities will change lives while leapfrogging outdated technologies. We have seen good progress at the intersection of the environment and development: more than $450 million was announced for locally led adaptation initiatives at COP 26 and we hope this momentum will continue.

As the world's second-largest economy and a global leader in renewable energy,China's transition can benefit billions of people within and outside the country. No wonder many emerging economies are watching how this transition takes place in China. And this transition is central to the country's 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25). How well humans and nature coexist and thrive together depends on how well this transition is achieved.

The world is watching how China completes this transition and will learn from it. Across the globe, leaders must turn their commitment into action this year so that people and nature can coexist and thrive together.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 54c1a.html

Ecological civilization drives environmental improvement
By Hou Liqiang | China Daily | Updated: 2022-03-31 09:06

Visitors take advantage of clear skies to take photos of the Palace Museum in Beijing last month. WANG XIN/FOR CHINA DAILY
Nation embraces action to help eradicate pollution and further promote the government's eco-friendly model for development. Hou Liqiang reports.

Sometimes, the smog was so heavy that people could hardly get a clear view of buildings just across the street. Many residents stored lots of particulate masks, and some even wore respirators outdoors.

That's how Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, an NGO, remembers the poor air quality in Beijing more than a decade ago.

While the particulate-filtering face masks Ma bought at the time have remained idle for a long while, they serve as reminders of the terrible air pollution in days gone by.

As Beijing enjoyed sustained clear, crisp air during the recent Winter Olympic Games, Ma marveled at the changes that have happened. "The improvement is huge and marked," he said.

According to official data, in 2013-the year Beijing started monitoring levels of PM2.5 particulate matter-the annual average density of the pollutant in the city was 89.5 micrograms per cubic meter.

Ma noted that the figure fell to 33 mcg per cu m last year, and when the Games opened on Feb 4, it was just 5 mcg per cu m.

Ecological civilization drives environmental improvement
By Hou Liqiang | China Daily | Updated: 2022-03-31 09:06

Image
Visitors take advantage of clear skies to take photos of the Palace Museum in Beijing last month. WANG XIN/FOR CHINA DAILY

Nation embraces action to help eradicate pollution and further promote the government's eco-friendly model for development. Hou Liqiang reports.

Sometimes, the smog was so heavy that people could hardly get a clear view of buildings just across the street. Many residents stored lots of particulate masks, and some even wore respirators outdoors.

That's how Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, an NGO, remembers the poor air quality in Beijing more than a decade ago.

While the particulate-filtering face masks Ma bought at the time have remained idle for a long while, they serve as reminders of the terrible air pollution in days gone by.

As Beijing enjoyed sustained clear, crisp air during the recent Winter Olympic Games, Ma marveled at the changes that have happened. "The improvement is huge and marked," he said.

According to official data, in 2013-the year Beijing started monitoring levels of PM2.5 particulate matter-the annual average density of the pollutant in the city was 89.5 micrograms per cubic meter.

Ma noted that the figure fell to 33 mcg per cu m last year, and when the Games opened on Feb 4, it was just 5 mcg per cu m.

Image
Swans take off from a river in Beijing's Miyun district in December. CHEN YANHUA/FOR CHINA DAILY
The improvement in air quality is just a microcosm of the sweeping environmental changes that have happened across the country as the central authorities make unprecedented efforts to promote the "ecological civilization"-a concept whose core principle is the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature.

Last month, 339 cities at prefecture level and above reported that the proportion of days with excellent air quality was 91 percent, up 4.5 percentage points year-on-year. Meanwhile, the figure was 100 percent in Beijing.

Under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization, "the country's environmental protection endeavors have seen sweeping, historic and transformative changes", wrote Sun Jinlong, Party chief at the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, in an article recently published in Qiushi Journal.

For example, in 2020, the proportion of the country's surface water that was suitable for drinking was 83.4 percent, a rise of 17.4 percentage points from 2015, Sun wrote.

Moreover, by the same year, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP had fallen by 48.4 percent from the 2005 level, beating the target of 40 to 45 percent, he added.

The country's forested areas and the volume of forest stock have expanded for 30 straight years, while roughly 25 percent of the land has been encircled by red lines for ecosystem conservation, the ministry said.

"No matter where General Secretary Xi Jinping goes, he is always concerned about, and repeatedly stresses, the advancement of the ecological civilization and environmental protection," Sun wrote.

Xi has visited many areas in the basins of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers and delivered a series of instructions regarding conservation and governance of the country's two longest waterways. Addressing a symposium in Jinan, capital of Shandong province, in October, the president said regions along the Yellow River should adhere to putting the environment first and being committed to green development.

It was the second symposium Xi had chaired on ecosystem protection and high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin. He has also convened three symposiums on improving the development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt.

Image
Children and their parents plant trees in Beijing on March 22. LI HE/XINHUA

Positive changes

Despite the challenges brought by the COVID-19 epidemic, the government has embarked on a comprehensive green transition that is expected to bring even more positive changes.

In September 2020, Xi announced that the country aims to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

"China will follow the Thought on Ecological Civilization and implement the new development philosophy. We will aim to achieve greener socioeconomic development in all aspects, with a special focus on developing green and low-carbon energy," said Xi when he addressed the Leaders Summit on Climate, a virtual event, in April last year.

A number of concrete climate actions have also been rolled out. In October, the central authorities unveiled a master guideline for the work required to achieve the country's climate targets, laying out specific goals and measures for the coming decades.

For example, the document pledged to gradually increase the share of nonfossil fuel consumption to about 20 percent of the energy mix by 2025, followed by about 25 percent by 2030 and more than 80 percent by 2060.

The central government is still working on specific action plans to enable different sectors to peak emissions.

"With the rapid growth of its carbon dioxide emissions largely reversed, China is heading toward modernization, following a path that is characterized by the harmonious coexistence of man and nature," said Wang Jinnan, head of the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning.

Image
All conventional electricity demands for the recent Winter Olympics were supplied by the newly built Zhangbei renewable energy flexible direct current power grid in Zhangjiakou, Hebei province, and the cross-regional green power trading mechanism. LI XIN/XINHUA
Structural transformation

Ma, the NGO director, is eyeing more environmental improvements in the wake of the country's climate actions.

The climate targets mean China will transform the structures of its energy, industry and transportation sectors, as well as people's lifestyles, which will help address pollution at the source, he said.

He added that positive progress had already been made at the Winter Olympics. With help of a grid that aids transmission of solar and wind power from Zhangbei, Hebei province, all the energy demands of the event's venues were supplied via renewable power. The grid is expected to help make 10 percent of power consumption in the capital green in the coming years.

China's transition in the process of building an ecological civilization is not only significant for the country, but also the world, said Erik Solheim, former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in a previous interview with China Daily.

"Now, we are in a completely new situation where there is a belief that we can promote the economic development goals and create jobs, while at the same time taking care of the environment," he said.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 544a5.html

********************************

Image
A solar photovoltaic project in Cuba. (Photo: IRENA/Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

How Cuba revitalised its energy sector while significantly reducing carbon emissions
Originally published: Green Left by Ian Ellis-Jones (March 30, 2022 ) | - Posted Apr 02, 2022

Cuba has been revitalising its energy sector for the past 25 years. As a result, there has been a demonstrable rise in overall efficiency and a significant reduction in emissions.

Before the 1959 Cuban Revolution, only 56% of the population had access to electricity. The United States had almost total control over Cuba’s economic, financial and commercial affairs. About three-quarters of the arable land, and more than one-third of raw sugar output, were owned or controlled by US companies.

US ownership of Cuba’s telephone and electricity services exceeded 90% and US firms owned all the public utilities and three petroleum refineries on the island.

Cuba nationalised foreign companies in 1960, including refineries, power stations and the Cuban Electric Company. The government paid compensation to foreign owners, except the US ones because of the US government’s opposition to nationalisation. At the time, Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro accused the US corporations of decades of systemic undercapitalisation and economic sabotage, detrimental to the interests of the Cuban people.

Once in power, the revolutionary government implemented an energy policy designed to raise electricity consumption and give every Cuban equal access to electricity and other forms of energy.

The government set about constructing a nationally integrated electricity system to interconnect the nation as “one immense zone”, to use the words of revolutionary leader Che Guevara, who was the industry minister.

By 1989, 95% of the population had access to electricity. Today, the figure is more than 98%.

The dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, and the ensuing collapse of the Eastern Bloc, resulted almost immediately in them ceasing aid to Cuba. Trade with Russia and the former Eastern bloc countries also came to a halt.

A severe economic crisis known as the “Special Period” ensued throughout the early 1990s. There were extensive rolling power cuts nationwide. Cuba was forced to switch from fuel oil — previously obtained from the Eastern Bloc — to heavy, high sulphur Cuban crude oil. Nevertheless, as early as 1990 almost 11% of electricity came from non-fossil fuel sources, mainly sugar cane waste.

The Special Period led the government to promulgate and implement environmental policies and practices designed to achieve sustainable outcomes. In the 1980s, Cuba had been persuaded by the USSR to develop a nuclear energy program, but that was abandoned in 1999.

Problems with generation and supply of electricity arose in 2004, after several years of insufficient investment as well as widespread damage to energy infrastructure from hurricanes. The problems were made much worse by the US economic, financial and commercial embargo (the blockade), in place since 1960.

In 2004, Cubans suffered 188 days of blackouts lasting more than an hour and exceeding 100 megawatts (MW) of lost load. This rose to 224 days in 2005.

There were, however, just 3 days of blackouts in 2006 and none in 2007. Something very significant had happened. Cuba launched an extensive program in January 2006 called Revolución Energética (the Energy Revolution). Within a few years, the energy and carbon intensity of the economy fell by more than one third.

The Energy Revolution had two main aims: First, to remedy the initial power crisis as quickly as possible; and secondly, to replace the obsolete and highly centralised power stations and ageing electricity grid with a more robust and ecologically sustainable power system — able to respond quickly to changes in demand as well as damage caused by hurricanes.

The government recognised the interconnection between its energy generation and distribution program and its national disaster mitigation program.

An integral component of the Energy Revolution was, and still is, the creation of a highly decentralised grid. It uses what is known as Distributed Generation (DG) or Decentralised Energy.

DG is based on a highly distributed but interlinked power network that makes use of numerous smaller power sources, such as rooftop solar or a city’s micro grid. Cuba’s DG comprises all of its small and medium power plants, which supplement the power generated from the nation’s main oil-fired power stations.

In recent years, several clusters of new small-sized generators have been linked at strategic locations throughout the countryside. The government also obtains some power from independent power producers (for example: Energas) as well as from renewable power plants.

The energy produced by DG facilities is generated near the ultimate consumers. It is then distributed through distribution power lines (low-voltage, short distance) instead of transmission power lines (high voltage, long-distance). This helps to avoid transmission losses. DG is also able to make more efficient use of renewable sources of energy, which by their very nature are highly distributed.

Cuba installed DG systems in 110 of its municipalities in 2006. For all intents and purposes, this ended the country’s ubiquitous blackouts. That same year, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) declared Cuba the only country to have achieved sustainable development. Since then, Cuba has often been recognised as one of the most sustainable or green nations.

By 2013, there was a growing reliance on renewable energy in Cuba. Sources include hydroelectric energy, solar radiation, wind-power and sugar cane biomass. However, there is still a heavy reliance on fossil-fuel combustion.

Just over a quarter (25.6%) of Cuba’s electricity was produced in decentralised power stations by 2015.

The government initiated a program to further develop renewable energy sources and use energy more efficiently in 2014. It aimed to accelerate the development of renewable energy, reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, improve energy generation efficiency, transform the structure of energy sources and increase environmental sustainability.

Despite the difficulties imposed by the 60-year-long US economic blockade, Cuba is aiming for 24% of the country’s energy to be derived from renewable sources by 2030. These will include biomass (14%), wind power (6%), solar power (3%), and hydroelectric power (1%).

Today, Cuba’s distributed power network supplies more than 40% of its power capacity. All 15 provinces now have electricity generation facilities with less fuel inputs and lower emissions.

The implementation of Cuba’s DG model of energy generation and distribution is one of the most important achievements of the Cuban Revolution.

https://mronline.org/2022/04/02/how-cub ... emissions/

*************************************

"Green Deal" in the dustbin of history
colonelcassad
April 4, 8:49

Image

"Green Deal" in the dustbin of history

Against the backdrop of a Russian special operation in Ukraine and rising energy prices, US President Joe Biden is trying to convince EU countries to buy American liquefied gas and convince OPEC to ease restrictions on oil production. However, as The Times Sunday Supplement columnist Irwin Stelzer writes, what matters most in the long run is Biden's decision to abandon the Democratic Green Deal.

If not for such a serious international situation, one of the most frequently heard phrases would be the phrase "I told you so," writes columnist for the Sunday supplement to The Times, Irwin Stelzer. Thus, according to the American economist, Europe was repeatedly warned about the need to abandon Russian gas, and the United States to develop its oil and gas resources.

American presidents from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump have warned Europe, and Germany in particular, of over-reliance on Russian natural gas. Nevertheless, Berlin still receives about 40% of its gas from Russia, closed its nuclear plants and banned hydraulic fracturing.

U.S. oil and gas workers have warned current U.S. President Joe Biden about over-reliance on renewable energy, stifling the development of the country's oil and gas resources through green initiatives. He is currently scouting for oil around the world and will draw 1 million barrels a day from the country's strategic reserve for six months in a bid to drive down gasoline prices and increase the Democratic Party's prospects of retaining control of Congress this year.

British economists have warned London that it would be unwise to stop subsidizing its main natural gas storage facility. However, the government of the country ignored the warnings, leaving the UK dependent on foreign supplies of natural gas at skyrocketing prices.

All appeals to the West to reduce dependence on Russian gas were ignored, Stelzer said, making Russian President Vladimir Putin "the de facto foreign minister of much of Western Europe." However, the Russian leader then decides to end "the geopolitical settlement that ended the Cold War."

This forced Biden, who lifted the sanctions imposed by his predecessor in the presidency, Donald Trump, which stopped the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which could increase Germany's dependence on Russian gas, to change his position. Since the beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, Biden has been doing everything possible to make it difficult for Germany and other countries to pay for gas coming from Russia. He is doing everything he can to convince EU countries to buy American liquefied natural gas and is doing everything he can to convince OPEC to ease restrictions on oil production.

The most important thing in the long run, Stelzer, in his article for the Sunday supplement to The Times, calls the fact thatBiden admits that he will have to give up his party's "green deal", as this is not what the US economy needs, and certainly not in the timeframe that was expected in Washington.

Thus, the country has stopped playing for time with the issuance of the necessary federal permits for the construction of a new gas infrastructure. The US Secretary of Energy is asking oil companies to intensify the development of fossil resources and increase the number of drilling rigs. They follow the president's requests, while hoping that they will not invest billions in energy infrastructure, which will eventually turn out to be unclaimed in the event of a transition to the development of a green economy.

https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2022-04-04 ... ie-ceni-na - zinc
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/soar ... -nxn2xsjsd - original in English

Another illustration to the thesis that all this the concept was artificially propagandistic and, if necessary, its principles are easily discarded. On the agenda are "the dangers of nuclear energy" and "the growth in the use of non-renewable energy sources." Although a certain inertia of the former "green manechki", of course, will still be observed as the economic and energy crisis develops.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7538488.html

Google Translator

As we can be sure that the escalation in Ukraine was on Biden's 'to-do' list from Day One it is from that easy to discern that Joe let the progressives play at what was at least symbolic recognition that our one and only environment was becoming unlivable as a result of Business as Usual cause he knew the curve ball that was coming to wreck even these grossly inadequate measures. No slippery slope, no way in hell. He's getting a little dotty but he's still the cynical fixer. But he ain't Trump....

So what?
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10586
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: The Long Ecological Revolution

Post by blindpig » Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:02 pm

Fukushima dumping plan toxic as ever
By PRIME SARMIENTO in Hong Kong | China Daily | Updated: 2022-04-14 09:38

Image
This picture taken on March 5, 2022 shows storage tanks for treated contaminated water at the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima prefecture. [Photo/Agencies]

Year after Japan's decision, anger over release of tainted water undiminished

International opposition to Japan's move to dump toxic water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean is as strong as ever a year on from the decision that sparked fears for the impact on neighboring nations.

The Japanese government said on April 13, 2021, it would discharge over 1 million metric tons of contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean. Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company will carry out the process gradually from spring 2023.

A year after the announcement, governments, global environmental groups and experts remain vocal in their condemnation as they step up the pressure on Japan to use a safer alternative than the ocean discharge.

The water has been used to cool the reactors at the nuclear plant after the Fukushima region was devastated by a tsunami in March 2011.

Seo Sam-seok, a lawmaker from South Korea's Democratic Party, told a forum on Monday that the discharge "will spread across the entire Pacific Ocean in 10 years and affect almost all of our seas", according to a report by Xinhua News Agency.

The Pacific Islands Forum, or PIF, comprising 18 countries, last month established an independent panel of global experts on nuclear issues. The panel will provide advice to the forum in its discussions with Japan on Fukushima contaminated water.

PIF Secretary-General Henry Puna said in a statement that the forum's "ultimate goal is to safeguard the Blue Pacific-our ocean, our environment, and our peoples-from any further nuclear contamination. This is the legacy we must leave for our children".

Tilman Ruff, a Nobel peace laureate and co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, said the concerns voiced by Japan's neighbors are justified, noting the "significant amount of radioactivity" involved in the Fukushima contaminated water.

"All radioactivity has harmful health consequences for all living things, not just humans. Once (the contaminated water is) released into the ocean, it will be minutely distributed with the ocean current and will find its way into the food chain," Ruff said in an interview with China Daily.

Ruff said there are "reasonable alternatives" to dumping the contaminated water into the ocean. One option is to contain it in a land-based storage system.

Greenpeace said the "most acceptable solution" is to continue long-term storage and processing of the contaminated water at its original site, rather than releasing it into the ocean. The environmental group has submitted a technical analysis to United Nations agencies, held seminars with residents of Fukushima and urged the Japanese government to reverse its ocean discharge decision.

Opposition voiced

The Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory some 2,500 kilometers southeast of Japan, supports Greenpeace's proposal. The territory has adopted a resolution opposing any nation's decision to dispose of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean.

Renato Redentor Constantino, executive director of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, a think tank in Manila, said Japan's decision to dump the contaminated water despite its potentially harmful impact on its neighbors shows that Japan "has learned nothing" from its history.

"The stain of shame is twice layered on Japan. First, for the obscenity of dumping on innocent lives the folly of its refusal to leave behind its deadly embrace of nuclear energy. Second, because it has learned nothing despite having been a victim of nuclear dumping through the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs," Constantino told China Daily.

Ruff said there's a "general growing norm that radioactive waste should not be dumped indiscriminately into the ocean and into places where it's not contained and can't be properly monitored and managed".

He said a claim by Japan that it is running out of space to store the contaminated water "is just a red herring". Ruff said Japan is using the towns of Okuma and Futaba as storage facilities. "There is actually quite a lot of land around the site that could be a site for expanded storage facilities."

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20220 ... 56e75.html

*******************************

Image

The horrific scam that water billionaires are running on poor Countries
Originally published: Counter Punch by Tamara Pearson (March 21, 2022 ) | - Posted Apr 13, 2022

Mega corporations like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Danone are making around 494 times what they spend by bottling water in Mexico and selling it back to locals who have no choice but to buy it.

In Mexico and other poor countries and regions, companies are taking water from aquifers, springs, rivers, and lakes, and putting it in plastic bottles or turning it into flavored and sugary drinks, then dumping their used and dirty water back into water sources. That, along with other industrial pollution which is disproportionately disposed of into rural, Indigenous, and poorer communities, means locals are not able to drink tap water and end up paying extortionate prices to the European and US corporations.

In exchange for taking Mexico’s water, Mexicans give water bottling corporations US$66 billion a year. Coca Cola, Pepsi, Danone, Nestle, Bimbo, and other bottling and junk food companies extract over 133 billion liters of water, and then dump at least 119 billion liters of contaminated water back into water basins and aquifers.

Inequality in access to water

Mexico is a dry country, and water is limited. But corporations are allowed to take as much water as they like, and there is little left over for small rural farmers and for domestic consumption.

I talked to Nahui, a leader of the United Peoples who are resisting Danone’s water brand, Bonafont’s ongoing robbery of their water in Puebla state. For her safety, she asked that just one name be used. We talked in the backyard of local person’s home. Chickens walked around us and birds chirped loudly in the trees above, but behind us the forty or so pear trees were totally empty of fruit. Bonafont’s extraction of water from the Indigenous Nahua region has caused local wells and water supplies to dry up.

“There is a lot of interest in territories where original peoples live because they are areas where people have habits and customs of looking after life, the rivers, the forests,” Nahui says. That, along with discrimination, makes such regions more attractive to companies, she argued.

The United Peoples brings together over 20 Nahua communities in the region. Early last year they closed down, then took over the local Bonafont bottling plant and converted it into a community center, but Mexican national and local security forces stood by the corporation and kicked them out of the plant last month.

I also spoke to Adriana Flores, a researcher with the Transdisciplinary University Center for Sustainability (CENTRUS) in Mexico City. “Coca Cola, Nestle, and some pharmaceuticals have been awarded access to whole aquifers, to millions of cubic meters of water, and that means when there are droughts, they don’t care. They’ll take the water. There are very unequal terms when accessing water. Those with the financial means are guaranteed water,” she said. Other people meanwhile, go without; 12 million people in Mexico don’t have access to a piped water supply.

Stealing water and polluting waterways is very profitable

The global bottled water market was worth US$230.4 billion in 2020, and the top beneficiaries are all US and European companies. Pepsi Co’s Aquifina brand tops the list, and is followed by Coca-Cola’s Dasani and Glaceau Smartwarter, Nestle’s Perrier, Danone (headquartered in France), Ozarka, and others.

To gain access to locals’ water, these companies use a range of devious methods. In the Nahua region, people in one town recently voted on whether the area would be governed by municipal or Indigenous law. All voting booth workers could be seen with Bonafont bottled water. To the south, in Chiapas, Coca Cola’s aggressive marketing includes usingIndigenous people’s homes as distribution points. The company also fought a legal battle in Oaxaca, as the state had prohibited the sale of single-use PET bottles, and in Toluca, it runs its biggest plant in the world. But the area faces extremely high water stress, and the 3 billion liters of water that Coca Cola takes only worsens that.

Meanwhile, corporations deliberately locate in poorer countries so they get away with polluting more. In Guadalajara, where there is a lot of heavy industry, Flores says the water “smells very bad, it tastes like metal … sometimes it makes my eyes burn.” Her team analyzed industries near two catchment areas, and found that milk processing plants, pharmaceuticals and more were dumping their waste directly into water sources, “without any monitoring, no transparency, environmental laws aren’t enforced.”

The Santiago river, also near an industrial zone, was covered in foam a meter and a half high. Activists and scientists blamed Swiss pharmaceutical, Ciba Geigy, now Novartis. There is no requirement in Mexico for companies to declare what contaminants they are discharging into water supplies or soil, and European companies that are banned from using lethal substances such as benzene or bisphenol in their home countries, don’t face that obstacle in Mexico.

But countries like Mexico don’t have lax environmental enforcement because they care less. Poorer nations have been pressured to accept polluting industries under the guise of “developing” their economies. Water exploitation licenses increased in Mexico by 3191% between 1995 and 2019 – a period that corresponds to the NAFTA agreement which completely opened Mexico up to US and Canadian companies and manufacturing, and barred Mexico from using environmental regulations against them.

“Free trade agreements allow companies to basically do whatever they want … Mexico is a fiscal paradise for them,” says Nahui, explaining that Bonafont has been able to steal water from Indigenous communities for decades thanks to “protection from the state.”

The US offshores its pollution, and is also one of the largest exporters of plastic waste, sending its trash to Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, and more – though countries like Canada may also then re-export the waste.

In addition, poorer countries have fewer financial resources to monitor and punish corporate pollution, or to treat contaminated water. In Mexico, only 25 to 57% of wastewater is treated, and over half of the treatment plants are not in working order. Some 80% of water bodies are contaminated with industrial waste.

The number of water monitoring centers in Mexico has halved over the last few years, Flores says, due to budget reductions. Industry does “what it likes” because authorities are more interested in spending money on pro-business projects such as the so-called Maya Train, she argues.

And bottled water companies only take the pressure off governments to improve the water supply. Nestlé started selling Pure Life in Lahore, Pakistan, in 1998. Local experts say that back then, they could go anywhere and get clean tap water for free, but nowadays everyone is drinking bottled water.

The correlation between countries with highly polluted water and high bottled water consumption
While the resources that go into bottling water would be better used in treating tap water and preventing pollution, that is never the case. Instead, those countries that most consume bottled water do so because they have to, with the exception of many European countries who have faced strong marketing campaigns that portray bottled water as a healthy lifestyle choice. Top consumers of bottled water per capita include Mexico, Thailand, El Salvador, Indonesia, China, Brazil, Romania, Germany, the US, and India, while the countries with the worst water include India, Germany, Indonesia, Brazil, China, Thailand, and Mexico.

Safely managed drinking water is still very much a privilege of wealthier countries. Elsewhere, the lack of access to safe tap water only further exacerbates inequality. Poorer regions are more vulnerable in times of drought or crisis if there is little water availability. Treating illnesses as a result of contaminated water is harder for people in poor regions, and small farmers struggle to survive when water is limited.

“We have a certain amount of water available to us for food, energy, and production, and … the fact that the water bottling companies have quantities of water guaranteed to them, reduces the amount available to other users, to rural and Indigenous communities,” says Flores.

Animals are also affected. The environmental damage caused by bottled water is 1,400 times that of tap water, in terms of species loss.

Charities won’t solve water inequalities

Many charities take an individual approach to the water crisis in poorer regions. But the donations they are campaigning for won’t halt the abuse perpetrated by corporations.

A lot of charities and NGOs also have strong messaging about the damage caused by the plastic bottles. This messaging is accurate and useful, but it focuses on consumer choices and ignores the role of global power and economic inequalities. Some organizations even talk about “collaborating” with industry, though in reality companies like Danone do not engage with or listen to the communities they are affecting.

“We’ve been cut off from the possibility of deciding what happens to the water in the areas we live in. Instead of access to water being a human right, it is expensive and inaccessible,” Nahui says.

https://mronline.org/2022/04/13/the-hor ... countries/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply