Reply To: Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
Alan, when Matt says that other members are engaged elsewhere he doesn’t mean that the are sitting at home watching football (or nature) programmes. He means they are on other “forums”. At the moment the most lively is one of our Facebook pages where members, sympathisers, ex-members and others from all parts of the world are involved. I don’t think it would be suitable for you as the exchanges are shorter and quickfire as opposed to our more ponderous ones here and on the Party blog.
I know the Conference agenda has been hi-jacked and swamped by one branch riding its particular hobby horse, but there is in fact an Item for Discussion on climate change (arising in fact from our exchanges here — which reminds me, I need to put the other side of your anti-plastics piece !). This month’s Socialist Standard also anticipated the school students anti-climate change strikes yesterday.
Anyway, here’s the Item for Discussion:
What should we say (and not say) about climate change?
Supporting statement:
Climate change is real and is being brought about by past and present human activity, in particular by the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy and power transport. This is an incontrovertible fact.
But does it represent a threat to human existence or civilisation? Is the end of the world nigh?
Some argue that it is, maybe just as a tactic to spur governments into doing more, but there are people who really believe it. But is such a what might be called “alarmist” approach justified? In other words, is it true? Is it a good tactic?
Without belittling the extent of the problem, the evidence is that it is not true. On the most plausible worst- case scenario (of nothing being done) the result would be disastrous, especially for low-lying coastal areas, but it would not mean the collapse of civilisation and certainly not the extinction of the human race. Nor, if you don’t really believe it, is it a sensible tactic, since if people come to think that the end of the world is nigh, then they are likely to conclude that nothing can be done about it and so not try to do anything – the exact opposite of what is intended. And, of course, there is also the chance of ending up with egg on your face as happened to the Club of Rome who predicted in 1972 that key metal and mineral resources would be begin to be exhausted in thirty years and that this would limit economic growth.
There are also other questions.
What do we think of those who argue that individuals should cut their personal consumption to help avert the problem? Should we?
And the more theoretical question of whether there are ecological limits to capitalism. The Party rejects the view that there are economic limits (i.e., that capitalism will collapse economically at some point) but does this apply to capitalism’s treatment of nature? Could there be natural limits to the accumulation of capital?