alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just read something about government regulation that can give some hope.
Remember smog?
The government simply pass the Clean Air Act legislation demanding smoke-less fuel to be used.
Who has a coal open fire these days?
But the first calls for smoke-free zones came in 1935 yet it took 25 years to be accomplished.
Worth a read.
This is what the WSPUS is up against
Nobody should be fooled about the term “democratic socialism,” because that’s just the politically-correct term for “communism” being used by people that “want to take away your hamburgers.” Also your house and your pick-up truck.
“This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved,” Gorka blustered. “You are on the frontlines on the war against communism.”… “That is why Ocasio-Cortez has introduced the Green New Deal, which is, which is — remember this one, use it — it’s a watermelon,” Gorka said. “Green on the outside, deep, deep red communist on the inside.”Fish catches have declined markedly and are likely to fall further, a study has found, with warming oceans to blame.
Around the world, fish populations have fallen over the past 80 years, although some species have shown greater resilience than others. Overall, catches of commercially important fish have fallen by just over 4%, but in some regions catches have plunged by about a third since early in the last century.
Who really cares, eh, ALB? It appears only you, me, a few MPs and a bunch of schoolkids who want to discuss climate change and its ramifications.
Climate change had not been debated in the main chamber of the House of Commons for two years. A handful of government MPs attended a debate on climate change in parliament on Thursday.
Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, said, “If you look at the trends, we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2 degree rise, we are heading something that looks more like 3 degrees, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate.”
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion said even after all of the international conferences and pledges, the Earth was still set to warm by 3-4C… “We face a climate emergency.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47410564
Chuka Umunna has been named as the spokesman.
Umunna said as it was not a political party, it would not have a leader.
Other roles agreed for its members are:
Sarah Wollaston: responsibility for “new colleagues”.
Heidi Allen: welfare and pensions, social care, and business
Luciana Berger: home affairs, health, and digital and culture
Ann Coffey: children and education
Mike Gapes: foreign affairs and defence
Chris Leslie: Treasury and trade
Joan Ryan: group business manager and international development
Gavin Shuker: group convener
Angela Smith: transport, local government and housing, and energy, environment and rural affairs
Anna Soubry: Brexit and justice (and assisting on defence)safety in cash
Cash holdings – a key gauge of investor caution – were increased to their highest since June 2015, to 7.2 percent from 6.2 percent last month.
“…We expect the year to be quite volatile with the market mood continuing to swing between fear and greed,” said Pascal Blanqué, chief investment officer at Amundi Asset Management
Almost 500 Labour supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have signed an open letter apologising to the Jewish community for the party’s “collective failure” over tackling antisemitism.
Was Williamson right. The Labour Party has been too apologetic?
As previous mentioned in earlier post, where is the debate on Israel’s government intending to fund 0ne million pounds in swaying political opinion in the UK?
Doesn’t the Tories possess any anti-semites or are they a unique collection of people?
Assessing estimates is I think we have agreed is a difficult process. We have our optimists and we have our pessimists.
Here is a summary
“…If we are very fortunate, global surface temperatures will only warm 2°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 – realistically that is the lowest equilibrium climate sensitivity we can hope for. The best case scenario doesn’t look too bad. If we take aggressive steps to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, we can keep global surface warming well below the most dangerous levels. Even in RCP 4.5, where emissions don’t peak until 2040, we will probably not pass the 2°C ‘danger limit’ in this best case scenario until after 2100, though we will be committed to about 2.4°C eventual warming once the planet reaches a new energy equilibrium. Quite simply, if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C, then we can double atmospheric CO2-equivalent levels (to 560 parts per million) before we commit ourselves to 2°C surface warming. That will require that we take steps to transition away from fossil fuels, but at a rate which is realistically achievable.
HOWEVER
The *most likely reality* (my emphasis) is a global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2.
NEVERTHELESS
In a realistic worst case scenario, global surface temperatures will warm 4.5°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2.
THEREFORE
There is a critical point that must be made here – the worst case scenario is just as likely as the best case scenario. Those who argue that we can proceed under the assumption that the best case scenario is reality do so by cherry-picking convenient evidence and ignoring inconvenient evidence. So what does this all mean? The only way we can be certain to avoid catastrophic climate change is to take major steps to reduce global fossil fuel consumption as quickly as possible. And remember, we haven’t accounted for account for possible changes in the carbon cycle, like reduced ocean carbon absorption or releases from melting permafrost, or slow feedbacks which may amplify global warming further in the future. The problem is that at the moment we’re moving in the wrong direction. The rate of increase in annual global fossil fuel CO2 emissions was about 3 times faster in the 2000s than the 1990s, and the increases in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 were two of the three highest annual emissions increases ever (data are not yet available for 2012). At a time when global emissions need to be flattening out and approaching a peak, instead they are accelerating. Power plants have lifespans of decades, so our decisions today lock us into a long-term emissions pathway. We need a global agreement to turn this trend around, and fast – we can’t just wake up 10 years from now and decide it’s finally time to take climate change seriously.
The good news is that we still have time to solve this problem. Even in the worst case scenario we would have a chance to avoid the most dangerous climate impacts with aggressive emissions reductions, and the lower the real-world sensitivity to CO2, the more time we have. However, that time is running out. Those wishful thinkers who are helping to delay meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they refuse to consider any but the best case scenario are doing the entire world a great disservice. At this point we only have two options – take urgent action to reduce fossil fuel consumption, or risk a climate catastrophe. The longer we delay, the greater the risk of catastrophe becomes…”
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
This is where we on this forum are now relying on our own knowledge of the history of capitalism and experience of politics. Will there be a delay in treating the situation with the utmost urgency or will there continue to be procrastination in implementing effective measures and policies. Do we place our faith in the capitalists doing the right thing for humanity – even if it is for the wrong reasons?
Or accept that it will be business-as-usual and any small reductions in emissions (such as economic downturns which you indicated previously) are mere hiccups in the prevailing trend of rising figures.
I think it is important to point out that climate scientists are not political scientists, nor are they social scientists, much less socialist scientists. The implications of their research such as the knock-on social effects can be under-estimates or over-exaggerations.
LB Neil,
The topic of patriarchy and feminism is going to be the subject of debates at our up-coming conference.
Motion A:
This Conference rejects the definition of capitalism as “male-dominated class society” and the view that “capitalism and patriarchy are aspects of the same thing”. Capitalism is based on the subordination of the working class to the capitalist class, which is not the same thing as the subordination of women to men. Conference further notes that the more advanced capitalism is the less the discrimination against women.
Supporting statement A:
At last year’s Autumn Delegate Meeting Lancaster Branch asked “What is the Party’s view of patriarchy?” It goes without saying that we are against it and for the full social equality of women and men. However, Lancaster suggested that patriarchy could be linked to capitalism; the passages in our motion are taken from their supporting statement. Our motion is intended to make it clear that the Party does not accept that approach.
There is still considerable discrimination today against women, especially in the economically backward parts of the world, but the fact that this is gradually lessening in the more advanced capitalist parts shows that it is not a built-in feature of capitalism. Modern feminists realise this too and seek to speed up this trend, which the spread of socialist ideas will speed up too.Motion D:
‘This Conference affirms that capitalism is not only a class-divided society but is also patriarchal.’
Supporting statement D:
After long discussion online and at ADM this subject deserves to be resolved by formal resolution. To echo what we said at ADM, if Engels was correct that the rise of property society coincided with and very likely caused ‘the world historic defeat of the female sex’, then male domination or patriarchy was the first and longest-lived oppression visited on the human race. Since class and gender oppression exist and have always existed in parallel, to treat them as mutually exclusive concepts is simply to stick one’s head in the sand and perform theoretical contortions. Not only is it possible to see the world as both class-divided and also patriarchal, it is essential. If we don’t, we are effectively telling at least half of the world’s population that socialism is not for them.Motion E:
‘This Conference reaffirms that the abolition of class oppression must of necessity entail the abolition of gender oppression.’
Supporting statement E.
For members this is a no-brainer, yet our position may not be at all clear to people outside the Party, especially given that the clause relating to women in the DoP is just two words long, consisting of ‘or sex’. The fear that gender oppression could survive and prosper into socialism itself is a very real one for many people, and we haven’t done enough to allay that fear. This resolution spells out to the working class in plain terms that the ending of gender oppression is intrinsic to socialist revolution, and not some tacked-on afterthought.Motion F:
‘This Conference repudiates the view that capitalism will itself abolish the oppression of women.’
Supporting statement F.
At ADM the argument was put that it is in the economic interest of capitalism to eradicate the oppression of women, and that it is currently in the process of doing so. We’ve heard this claim before, and it’s been used as a reason to dismiss feminism as irrelevant. But if the argument is right, then after 300 or so years capitalism should have done it by now. Capitalism is nothing if not adaptive, and well able to reinvent itself where it sees the need. But what do we see instead? No country has ever managed to achieve equal pay or equal work opportunities in any sector of their economy, nor shows any sign of doing so. No country has eradicated sexual harassment, rape or domestic violence. While some legislative and cultural efforts have been made in some western countries, a superficial liberalism still masks a
deeply misogynistic undercurrent.
In 2017 in the UK 139 women were killed by male violence, leading a Guardian op-ed to describe a ‘war on women’ that is a ‘global pandemic’ (18 December, 2018). (See note 1). Indeed, globally gender oppression remains as severely and murderously entrenched as it ever was. Why hasn’t capitalism done better than this? The Guardian article offers a clue: ‘Even with the best police and criminal justice responses possible, if men continue to see women and children as their property, and believe that women exist to satisfy them sexually, then the rape and murder of women will never end’. The inference to draw from this is that capitalism is able to co-exist comfortably with the oppression of women because that oppression is really a form of property relationship, and thus if anything complementary to capitalist ideology. In consequence, the likelihood of capitalism eradicating gender oppression is so small that it should be repudiated as a socialist argument.
1 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/women-uk-femicide-statistics-died-maleviolenceMotion G:
‘This Conference considers that issues affecting women are such a prominent part of life for 50% of the population that they warrant a dedicated column in the Socialist Standard, if writers can be found for it.’
Supporting statement G:
We were asked at ADM to come up with concrete suggestions to encourage more female participation in the Party, so this is one suggestion. We don’t want to ‘instruct’ the Standard to do something it might not be able to do, but we don’t see any harm in making a general recommendation that might have a positive effect on female engagement.Motion H:
‘This Conference is of the view that a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist.’
Supporting statement H.
We think most if not all members would say they support feminist principles to a large degree, and some members already regard themselves as bona fide feminists. At the same time, many feminists will also be broadly sympathetic with our case, and some will say they are feminist-socialists. There’s nothing wrong with this formulation in principle. The only thing we would disagree with is where some feminists pursue wholly reformist objectives, but in that case we would oppose them as reformists, not as feminists.Motion I:
‘This Conference instructs the EC to establish an ad-hoc committee to look into ways of encouraging more female membership, to report to Conference 2020.’
Supporting statement I.
This is another concrete suggestion born of the ADM discussion, and while some people will not be enthusiastic about yet another ad-hoc committee, the subject does need serious attention if we’re ever going to make progress towards balancing the membership ratio. We would expect such a committee to undertake wide consultation both inside and outside the Party which is why we propose a fairly long time-frame.As you see, it will be a wide-ranging discussion and you will be made very welcome if you can attend.
April Sat 27- Sun 28, 10-30am onwards both days
The Head Office
52 Clapham High St.
London SW4If not, a post-conference report will be produced in due course. There will also be all-party-member voting arising from this conference. So watch this space, as they say
Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, said that the Labour Party’s failure to deal with antisemitism met the definition of “institutional racism” laid out in the ground-breaking Macpherson Report,
Macpherson defined institutional racism as “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin”. Mr Borowski said a “pattern of antisemitism” had emerged in the Labour Party.
He said: “Once can be a mis-speak, twice can even be a coincidence but repetition over and again is a pattern from which you can draw inferences. It is very saddening to see that, but it’s a fact.”
Unflattering biographies of the Tiggers.
Media Lens doing its usual demolition job on the journalists self-image of their integrity and objectivity.
” …‘We don’t do propaganda’. This is a deadly myth. Deadly, because it masks the fact that corporate media, especially BBC News, are responsible for propaganda that pushes more Western ‘intervention’, more war, more stolen natural resources, more mass deaths of innocent civilians, more refugees, more corporate profits, more fossil-fuel burning, more species loss and, ultimately, more planetary destruction; perhaps even human extinction in an era of climate chaos….”
By coincidence, the latest article by Wallace-Wells
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/02/27/our-five-biggest-delusions-about-climate-change
“…We tend to think of global warming as a legacy of the Industrial Revolution. In fact, according to my research, more than half of the carbon exhaled into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has come in the last 30 years. That is, since Al Gore published his first book on climate, and since the premiere of “Seinfeld.” The United Nations established its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988, signaling to all the world a scientific consensus about the problem. Since then, we have done more damage, knowingly, than we did over preceding centuries, in ignorance… scientists have defined two degrees as the threshold of climate catastrophe, and many of us have treated that level of warming as a worst-case scenario. In fact, it is a best-case scenario…”
As Trump meets the North Korean dictator and describes him as a “great leader”
Venezuela calls for a meeting between Trump and Maduro
An offer of talks spurned by a walk-out at the UN.
Just who is being reasonable and unreasonable?
And when will the media report these overtures by Venezuela in their headlines?
