ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There’s a relevant parallel here with “Operation Yellowhammer” with regard to what is meant by “worst-case” scenario. The UK government’s document on what might happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit is officially described as “reasonable worst case planning assumptions”. This is not a “forecast” or “prediction” of what will happen , but what might risk happening in a “reasonable” worst case scenario.
Applied to the climate change debate, there are a range of scenarios with varying degrees of probability. The UN IPCC “worst case” scenario is a rise in global warming to 4.9 degrees by 2099. It is possible to envisage cases even worse than this, but the question is would these be “reasonable”.
In any case, none of the scenarios are predictions, but possible outcomes based on particular assumptions. It is here that the question of “reasonable” comes in: are the assumptions reasonable? Some, in fact, all of the climate change worst-case scenarios are based on the assumption that nothing will be done to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions — which I would suggest is not a reasonable assumption. Something is being done and as profits are threatened and/or the cost of doing nothing mounts more will be done, not enough of course, but enough to mean that the worst-case scenarios won’t be what happens.
In fact, many climate change activists are publicising “worst-case” scenarios precisely with a view to action being taken to avoid them happening. Some seem to think that the worse the worst-case the more chance there is of action being taken. I don’t know about that as it’s not a question in the context of capitalism of what governments should do, but of what they can do. No amount of popular pressure can force them to overcome the limits of having to minimise costs so as to stay in the competitive race for profits.
Yes of course, in the sense that Marx held that a socialist/communist society would be a state-less society, i.e., a society whose central administration would not have coercive power at its disposal (what makes such an administration a “state” as in class-divided societies). In that sense Morris too, like us, was an “an-archist”, but I think people today are deliberately calling him an anarchist to suggest that he wasn’t a Marxist.
Oh no he wasn’t. And he said so both publicly and privately on a number of occasions. Mind you he was up against individualist (even those who called themselves “communist anarchists” denounced democracy as the tyranny of the majority) and bomb-throwing anarchists who eventually took over and destroyed the Socialist League.
Morris was a Marxian socialist.
Maybe not, but one of them has now been elevated to the House of Lords as a Baron (from today’s Times):
“John Hendry, QC, an employment rights lawyer, stood for the No2EU party in the 2009 European elections, and Christine Blower, former general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, stood for the London Socialist Alliance at the London Assembly elections in 2000.”
It looks as if Trotskyists are now “entering” the House of Frauds.
Not a bad publicity stunt but why spoil it by talking about the “impending” collapse of the ecosystem. Impending suggests that it is actually about to happen. “Threatening” would have been not so bad. But maybe it’s to do with the translation of whatever the original German word was.
I agree. I wouldn’t want earthquakes in my backyard or juggernauts trundling past my front door. But I wouldn’t claim that if this happened humanity would be threatened with extinction.
Just received a personalised letter from “Jo Swinson MP Leader of the Liberal Democrats” (don’t know how I got on their mailing this, perhaps because I once complained to a LibDem councillor about a 20 mph speed limit and bumps on a main road). She makes the following promise:
“If we stop Brexit, then we can build an economy that works for everyone, so families aren’t forced to rely on foodbanks. We can make tackling the climate emergency a priority for our government. We can start investing in our schools so that every child has the best start in life.”
Oh yes. If not being in the EU would prevent this, why couldn’t “we” have done these things during the forty odd years when Britain remained a member?
“The same kind of logic applies in the case of tackling climate change. The trillions of dollars needed to tackle climate may well be less than the costs of inaction but as a long as each capitalist state is seeking to externalise the costs of tackling climate change – get others to bear to more of the burden of these costs so as not to impair its own economic prospects in its competition with others – inaction will result. States will only be dragged kicking and screaming into action as things get generally worse and the action they take will probably be too little too late..”
Likening the capitalist states to Hardin’s private herd owners is a good way of putting it. I am going to start using it myself.
That’s why I asked which part of the country you came from, so we could put you in touch with another member living locally to explain our procedures. Normally, the EC doesn’t deal directly with individual members but with them via branches. The Party’s email address is: spgb [at] worldsocialism.org if you want to reply there.
Is this (put forward here by a SDLP politician) the face-saving formula for Johnson — a customs border down the Irish Sea leaving Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and frictionless single market, perhaps endorsed by a referendum in Northern Ireland? After all, having thrown away its majority, the regime is no longer so dependent on the DUP and can dump them.
Incidentally, this is what the EU originally proposed (without the referendum). It was the May government that changed it to apply to the whole of the UK. But that was when they still needed DUP votes and went around with hand on their heart saying how dear to them was the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Actually (sorry!), XR does both. I have in front of me a leaflet put out by one of their local groups (in Sutton, South London) which says:
“The Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice”
and, seemingly pre-empting the decisions of such an Assembly:
“The Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”
The same idea as yours occur to me too: What if the Assembly reached the conclusion that the only framework within which the problem could be tackled was the abolition of capitalism and the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s resources — as it would have to, if really objective, as objectively (not a matter of opinion) this is the only such framework ?
Of course we should be present at demonstrations and meetings to put our view across to those there. And we will be in September and October (“Comrades from SW region are intending to come up to London to leaflet this event,” email message), not just in Britain but also in Calcutta as this extract from latest WSP (India) Minutes shows:
“That we organize a rally revealing climate breakdown on Sunday, 22 September 2019; turnout at 2pm at the College Square, Calcutta having to speak to the gathering and distribute leaflets (Bengali & English)”.
My point was about what we say to them. Do we endorse demands that capitalist governments should do more? Or do we say socialism is the only framework? Or both I suppose — which it what I thought you and Schken were going to reply !
My personal view is that capitalist governments will in fact be forced by economic circumstances and no doubt some political pressure to do more, not enough of course (because the competitive struggle for profits built-in to capitalism means they simply can’t do enough to tackle the problem properly) but still more, which will mitigate worst case scenarios based on them doing nothing.
I don’t want to be too “unalarmist” but this statement from the link is a bit vague as to what might happen:
“Under current business-as-usual pathways, global heating will cause a temperature increase of 2.0–4.9 °C by 2100 .”
There’s a huge difference between the effects of an increase to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and an increase to 4.9 degrees. It looks unlikely that the UN IPCC’s target of limiting the increase to 2 degrees is going to be achieved (the other article referred gives it a 5% chance) but that doesn’t mean that it will be 4.9 degrees which would indeed be really disastrous. To over 2 degrees will have serious effects, but to nearly 5 degrees ….
Incidentally, here’s one comment on that study:
“The only bright point is that, as the study authors say, they haven’t factored in the plummeting cost of solar power,”
In other words, the outcome of your calculations depends on your assumptions.
None of us here are experts in this field so we do have to be guided by what scientists there say. The trouble is that they are not agreed, so we have to form a judgement but that does not mean that we have to follow those who are outliers.
All we can conclude is that there is a problem, that something needs to be done about, and that the more emissions are reduced the better. To what extent they will be under capitalism is another matter. But what do we do.? Join in demonstrations to try to get capitalist governments to do more or work to establish the framework within which the problem and its consequences can be dealt with rationally?
If West Midlands branch wanted to contest a seat I don’t think the EC would say “no”, but it would have to come from the branch. As it happens, the EC will be discussing the looming general election in a few hours. Luckily, the opposition “Rebel Alliance” has made things easier to plan by postponing the election till November (so a final decision can be made at the 5 October meeting) but we can’t know what might happen over the next few weeks to change things again.
