ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I quite liked this passage aimed at the extinction-mongers in a trot leaflet handed out at the 6 November climate marches in Oxford and Manchester:
“The world isn’t ending.
We are facing an ongoing struggle, not a single apocalypse. There may be tipping points and disasters in climate breakdown, but there is no end point on the horizon after which nobody will be left to suffer, or to fight.”Pity that the fight they envisage is not for socialism but only against the effects of capitalism. But, then, they are only trots after all. In this case RS21, a breakaway from the SWP.
Here is a summary of the IPCC’s 5 possible “pathways” to 2100:
“1. SSP1 – 1.9 Sustainability
Warming levels reach 1.50C above 1850-1900 levels in 2100 after a slight overshoot. Net zero CO2 emissions are achieved by 2050.2. SSP1- 2.6 Middle of the Road
Warming stays below 2C by 2100
Net zero CO2 emissions achieved in second half of century.3. SSP2 – 4.5 Regional Rivalry
Emission reductions approximately in line with upper end of the combined Paris Agreement pledges. Estimated warming of 2.7oC by 2100.4. SSP3- 7.0 Inequality
No additional climate policy is enacted
Particularly high non-CO2 emissions released including aerosols.5. SSP5 – 8.5 Fossil-fulled development
No additional climate policy is enacted
Economy is still fossil-fulled.”(Source)
The worst case scenario (5) is not going to happen. In fact isn’t happening. At the time of the report scenario 3 seemed the most likely. With the additional pledges at Glasgow it seems that the move is towards scenario 2 rather than scenario 4 (the second worst). My guess is that net zero carbon will be achieved before the end of the century but not in time not to overshoot 2 degrees by 2100. That will cause problems, big problems, but not the collapse of civilisation or of capitalism
So, not enough to be too alarmed and catch “eco-anxiety”.
Ok, the rise since 1850 in average global temperature is not going to be limited to 1.5 degrees (to a further 0.4 degrees) by the end of the century. But a rise by 2.4 degrees would mean neither the end of the human race nor the end of civilisation. The real tragedy is that people can conceive of the end of these but not of the end of capitalism.
Two South West regional branch comrades were at the Bournemouth seafront demo on Saturday where there was about 100 people at its height and distributed a good few hundred leaflets to demonstrators and passers-by. The remaining leaflets will be distributed door to door in Portsmouth and Poole.
If you have the patience the 20 minute live report will give some idea of the sort of people on these marches and their views. Note the two people interviewed carrying SWP placards saying “System Change not Climate Change” who had nothing to do with them but were from some environment charities.
Yorkshire Group report that four of them distributed 500 leaflets at the march and rally in Sheffield.
I like the way the three of them blot out their faces. No doubt they consider this a wise precaution to prevent themselves being identified by MI5 since they envisage destroying capitalism in an armed insurrection led by a vanguard party.
Still, most people won’t understand their banner that way, so it will have done no harm. In fact it will have reinforced the view that global warming has something to to do with capitalism — something we are aiming to do with our “End Capitalism” we are distributing at these events.
This article from a French-language Belgian newspaper on the EU’s plan to reduce CO2 emissions illustrates a problem that will be more acute at world level.
The European Commission has drawn up a plan which sets out by how much each EU member state should reduce its emissions. Under it, Belgium is to reduce its by 47% while Rumania has to reduce its by 12.7% and Bulgaria by only 10%.
The article is about the Flemish regional government’s objection to this, calling for Belgium’s figure to be lowered and those for the countries of Eastern Europe to be raised.
The measures, they say in a note, “must not lead to an increase in the tax burden or the bill for energy in Flanders”, but should “safeguard the competitiveness of our Flemish enterprises as well as the purchasing power of Flemish households.”.
That’s a tall order but it’s what all the states in Glasgow will be aiming for. All will be seeking to keep their energy costs down so that competitiveness of their enterprises is not undermined. Even if a majority position is agreed, there is no way of enforcing it on the minority.
Just realised what the word “dreich” means in that press report and why it was appropriate.
I am afraid the Glasgow march was a washout as far as our members were concerned. As this press report indicated, there was heavy rain and the local members decided that there was no point in handing out soggy leaflets. So the comrades up there and from there now have 4000 leaflets to hand out over the next couple of days.
However, the comrades from south of the border arrived yesterday and have set up the stall. But it’s raining today too. Clearly Glasgow is not a place from which to notice any effect from global warming.
Here’s more on the non-combustion use of fossil fuels. It’s not just for plastics:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35672
In fact, the high price of natural gas at the moment caused two fertiliser plants in Britain to close until helped out by the government.
I must confess I didn’t know before that this was one of the uses of natural gas or I assumed that it was burned in the process of making fertilisers.
You live and learn.
But does he explain? He seems to be going back on his famous declaration that he had come to realise that it was not a particular kind of capitalism that was to blame but capitalism as such. Now he seems to being saying that fossil fuel capitalists should be singled out and dealt with by governments “willing it” and then things will be alright.
This is just not going to happen under world capitalism. The government of states that have internal sources of oil, gas or coal such as Russia, China, India, Australia and Saudi Arabia are not going to “will” it as this would undermine their competitiveness and cause economic chaos and social unrest at home. It could even lead to them being overthrown or voted out of office.
What he is calling for is just not going to happen under capitalism.
The transition away from burning fossil fuels could only take place in a world where the Earth’s resources were no longer owned by profit-seeking corporations and states. You can’t control what you don’t own, so these resources have to become commonly owned or, expressed better, not owned by any section of society. Only on this basis could a rational world energy policy be drawn up and implemented.
Incidentally, I don’t see why this would necessarily have to exclude using any fossil fuels for anything. There are other uses for oil and coal and then there’s “carbon capture”. I know this is only experimental at the moment but so are some renewable energy sources. If it could be shown to work, why not use it?
South Wales branch report that the march and rally in Cardiff was a wash out. It was raining and only a few hundred turned up. All the same, they got leafletted but it meant that the branch has hundreds of leaflets left which they will hand out at their weekly street stall.
Here is who is behind the leaflet handed out in Oxford by those calling for a global strike against firms that are causing global warming. Can’t work out who is behind them.
They are also organising a meeting in Glasgow which our comrades going there could cover as well as the one just mentioned:
Still true, though, that if people are not prepared to vote to end capitalism they are not likely to strike to do this.
ps. Just discovered who is behind Free Our Unions if not Earth Strike. It’s a front for the Trotskyist AWL. Should have guessed it would be something like that.
There is another comment, from a reader, under the original article :
“‘Taxes are the sinews of the state’ – attributed to Cicero. True in his time and true today. Since the state is a coercive body the servant of the exploiting class it will collapse with the advent of a socialist society.”
PGB, it is you that are playing the language game, first over “burden” now over “pay”.
Saying that workers literally don’t pay income tax deducted a source is a factual statement not an economic analysis.
Deductions paid by the employer for a workers’s debts are a burden on that worker (though deductions for union dues can hardly be regarded as a “burden”) as it does reduce the money they have to pay for other things.
Economic analysis of deductions for income tax shows these to be a burden on the employer. Their economic effect is, as you concede, similar to if the workers had paid them from their pockets — being passed on to employers as higher money wages due to the higher money cost of maintaining and reproducing labour power. The money that goes to the state comes in the end from profits (higher money wages means lower profits).
