ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But why would they be “ultra conservative” and play down the implications of their studies? A good scientist will advance their ideas as tentative and in terms of probabilities rather than certainties but that’s not the same as being “ultra conservative”. In fact, it’s the scientific method. And what gives non-specialists (like ourselves) the standing to say that a specialist’s conclusions are wrong or underestimates? We would have to set out our reasons in detail, so that they can be examined and challenged.
When it comes to climate change any estimates as to what might happen in the future have to be a “guestimate” even if an informed one. Scientists do not know even such a basic thing as by just how much average global temperatures will rise in response to a given increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Nobody knows. All they can do is offer a range of more or less likely outcomes. So all we know with certainty is that if there is an increase in CO2 levels there will be an increase in global temperature and so in the effects of this in terms of rising sea levels, more stormy weather, and changing regional agricultural and ecological conditions. So, to avoid these, there’s a need to cut emissions whatever the guestimates.
As to presenting their estimates as “benign”, in the case of climate change the standard way of presenting them is in terms of a rise in average global temperature since pre-industrial times, with 1.5C at the low end 4.5C at the high end by the end of the century. But as average global temperature has already risen 1C since then, they are actually talking about a further rise of between 0.5C and 3.5C, which is rather less scary (though a rise of 3.5C is scary enough).
Two people have been arrested. It remains to be seen whether they are pranksters, publicity-seekers or “eco-warriors”. Environmentalists are already shitting themselves about this anti-working-class stunt being the work of one of theirs:
Another, older study here:
IPCC’s worst case global warming scenario by the end of the century is extremely unlikely, according to study
“We have a more accurate set of models now. Humans are clearly influencing this situation and we need to do something about it, but the range of expected warming this century has gone from 1.5-4.5 degrees C to 2.2-3.4 degrees Celsius.”
It is also rules out the IPCC’s “best case” scenario of 1.5 degrees C. Or narrows the range of what is likely to happen. Also, since it’s so many degrees above pre-industrial levels and since there’s already been a rise up to now of 1 degree, it’s talking about an additional rise by the end of the century of 1.2-2.4 degrees. It is still (like all the others) only a guestimate as who knows what will happen. The trouble is none of us here are likely to be around towards the end of the century to find out what does.
Yes:
The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.
It’s from his 1844A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the same article which contains his famous quote about religion being the opium of the people. See:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
I wouldn’t say that’s a Maoist position. When quoted in full, it’s what we say isn’t it? Except that when the socialist idea grips the masses and becomes a “material force” this doesn’t necessarily mean armed force but political pressure backed up, if need be, by armed force?
It’s not just us. This morning’s Times is reporting:
Police are investigating whether environmental activists were responsible for the attacks.
I wonder if anti-climate change activists might be behind the drone incident at Gatwick. It is the sort of thing some of them might feel morally impelled to do.
Another, rather disturbing “concession” is reported in today’s Times:
In the face of populist protests on each of the past five weekends by gilets jaunes, Mr Macron has pledged to review immigration policy, to the consternation of some in his La République en Marche party.
However, other La République en Marche MPs said immigration was of concern to the yellow-vest protesters, many of whom compared Mr Macron unfavourably to President Trump.
I’m not sure how true the last statement is, though integration of migrants and camps outside Europe for asylum-seekers were among one list of demands.
It’s fun watching the Tory party tearing itself part. Chris Patten has just called Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group “Maoists”:
Tory grandee Lord Chris Patten compared hard line Brexiters in the party to “rodents” and branded them “bullying fanatics” and “Maoists”. He told the BBC: “It is impossible to get a deal on the European Union and our relationship with it which is both in the national interest and satisfies the Maoists in the Conservative Party.
It’s more apt than perhaps he thinks. Try and work out who wrote this:
Under her deal, the EU would keep our cash and control of our laws, trade, borders and waters – and, backstop or not, even of our defence. This is the deal that the EU has always wanted, a deal that seals us back into the EU, paying it however much it wants, with no rebate. A deal under which we would have no say, no vote, no control. (,,,,) Now May is off to Brussels again, arms raised up in mock supplication. She should stay there, and leave the job of implementing Brexit to someone who believes in it.
No, it’s not Jacob or one of his cronies calling for Boris or some other Leaver to take over. It’s the latest idiotorial from the “Communist Party of Britain Marxist Leninist”:
https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/message-may-just-go
So, which way round is it? Are the ERG Maoists or are the CPBML Tories? In any event, both are extreme nationalist numbskulls.
It know we’re not supposed to quote the Scum here but here’s their reply:
It gets better and better.
Just noticed that the IWGB is calling for a second referendum with the option to stay in, at least in the single market. They see this as a way of protecting workers’ rights in the UK, especially those of workers from other EU countries (who they seek to represent):
iwgb.org.uk/post/5bfcf93d5df02/iwgb-joins-call-for-a
Workers don’t need to get involved in deciding the trading arrangements of the capitalist class, even though here the IWGB are wrong for the right reason.
It seems to becoming more and more likely that the political representatives of the capitalist class in parliament and government are going to have to opt for a referendum as the way of settling the differences over trading arrangements between the various section of the capitalist class they represent.
While, from a socialist point of view, a referendum on this issue would be irrelevant (trading arrangements are a concern of the capitalist class only) and even dangerous (it will unleash yet more xenophobia), from a democratic point of view you can’t argue that the result of one referendum cannot be overturned by another referendum. Of course it can and there would be nothing undemocratic about it. In fact, this possibility is written into the democratic rulebook of our party and has happened on a number of occasions.
It’s absurd to claim, as in the unattributed quote, that “humans are not carnivores”. It is not even clear what this means since humans have always eaten meat. All existing stone-age tribes eat meat as the archeological evidence shows that those that haven’t survived did so too. In fact how could the Eskimos, Laplanders and others living within the Arctic Circle survive without eating meat (in fact it was reading an article in the papers yesterday about the Sami and their reindeer in Norway that prompted me to intervene, against my better judgement, is this pointless debate)? Even those Andaman Islanders who dealt with that missionary must be meat-eaters. They won’t have bows and arrows just to shoot coconuts down from trees.
Biologically humans are omnivores with what they eat (or don’t eat) being culturally determined. Some can even choose not to eat meat.
Yes, we reviewed it in the September 2017 Socialist Standard
FRANCE YELLOW VESTS PROTEST: MACRON PROMISES WAGE RISE
The minimum wage will be increased by 7% – and the cost of this increase will be met by the government rather than employers.
Actually, Macron did not promise a wage rise. That’s what I thought he said when I was listening to him, as did those commenting on French international TV immediately afterwards. But what he actually said, and meant, was that those on the minimum wage would get an extra €100 a month (a Euro is worth about 90p and rising due to the Brexit farce), not that the wage itself would be increased.
What he meant was that the French equivalent of “tax credits”, as a monthly state payment to those on low wages (a subsidy to employers to allow them to go on paying low wages) would go up by €100. That’s the meaning of the increase being “met by the government rather than employers”. A gradual rise in this over the next 3 or 4 years was already planned. So, what the gilets jaunes have achieved here is to get the rise brought forward (and increased a bit). Something but not as impressive as a rise in the minimum wage by 7%. That would have been rather impressive as in France when the minimum wage goes up so, under trade union agreements, in order to maintain differentials do the wages of many other workers.
One of the other measures announced by Macron will amount to a wage increase for many workers: exonerating overtime payments from tax and social security contributions (as had been the case in the past). Which, again, won’t affect employers.
In fact Macron went out of his way not to add to the costs of employers. The only tax increase announced was on the ‘digital giants’ Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon (known as GAFA in France).
So, in so far as the protests were about money, the protesters did get some crumbs even a bit of baguette. I imagine that, with the christmas/new year break coming, the movement will now wind down.
Ironically, capitalism being what it is, making cutting CO2 emissions profitable is more likely to succeed (as Alan has just pointed out) than appealing to politicians in charge of governments to do what they can’t (undermine their competitivity of their exports by unilaterally increasing energy costs).
As an article from the Socialist Standard of February 1989 (yes, we were on to it then too) by D.A.T. from New Zealand pointed out:
Measurements made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial research since the early seventies show the concentrations of carbon-dioxide to be 325 ppm in 1973 and 350 ppm in 1988. Average global temperatures have been recorded from the year 1880 and figures show that the highest were in 1987 and the five hottest years have been since 1980. The United States is now taking the greenhouse effect very seriously as it stands to be a big loser if world temperatures rise as some predict. Other nations may benefit in the short term. At worst, if the use of fossil fuels for energy continue on the existing scale, the average global temperature will rise at a catastrophic 0.8 degrees centigrade per decade.
The worldwide capitalist system will be unable to deal effectively with this problem. The warning signs have been with us for years, and many experts and environmentalists have been pointing out the dangers. Damage which will have an effect many decades later is being done now.
Alternatives to environmentally destructive industrial processes exist, they are generally more expensive and this would reduce the competitiveness of a nation or company which chose to adopt them unilaterally. Action will only be taken if damage begins seriously to impair the smooth functioning of the profit system — or if anti-pollution measures and products become profitable in themselves. Either way, capitalism’s air will remain unfit to breathe.
Plus ça change. That was thirty years ago. In the meantime, despite all the demonstrations and appeals to governments, things have got worse. Thirty wasted years. The only good thing is that the average global temperature did not rise by 0.8 degrees centigrade per decade (i.e. by 2.4 degrees) over the period, but that was more by accident than by design.
