Saving Earth or Saving Profits / Survival Is the Issue...

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25938232.post-86199926447528117932008-01-19T19:41:00.000Z2008-01-19T20:16:40.695ZSaving Earth or Saving Profits / Survival Is the Issue...Here are two recent pieces from groups in our sector addressing one of the paramount (can there really be *more* than one paramount?) issues of our day, both making solidly many of the points which our professional ruling class refuses to face up to, endangering all of us as well as themselves. While there may be differences within our sector as to the details upon particular fields of action, the class to which we all appeal is who will make the final determination and is the only one which can save us all from extermination, if it acts in time. The environment is not under threat from industrial production as such, but from this in the service of profit-seeking. All forms of vegetable and animal life are part of a network of relations called an "ecosystem" in ecology. Normally this system is self-regulating to the extent that, if an imbalance develops, this is rectified spontaneously, either by the restoration of the previous balance or by the establishment of a new balance. The problem is that there's been the industrial revolution: the pollution of water and the ground due to the massive disposal of toxic or non-recyclable wastes and to the use in intensive agriculture of chemical fertilisers, nitrates and pesticides; the pollution of the oceans due to the increase of maritime traffic, the flow from polluted rivers, the shipwreck of oil tankers (70 alone in 1996!), the discharge of toxic, chemical and radioactive waste, desludging at sea, etc; overfishing; the pollution of the air due to the massive use of fossil fuels, the development of the individual motor car, and the clearance by fire of forests (despite these being the lungs of the planet!); industrial accidents (Seveso (1996), Bhopal (1984), Chernobyl (1986), Toulouse (2001)); the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2) by petrol vehicles and factories, deforestation, leading to global warming and its consequences (rise in the sea level due to the melting of the icepack and of polar and continental glaciers, floods, desertification, storms); acid rain; extinction of living species; introduction of GM organisms; storage of nuclear waste; expansion of towns (where now more than half the world's population live). And for a good reason! No State is going to implement legislation which would penalise the competitiveness of its national enterprises in the face of foreign competition. States only take into account environmental questions if they can find an agreement at international level which will disadvantage none of them. But that's the snag because competition for the appropriation of world profits is one of the bases of the present system. Attempts at international cooperation have already been made: the League of Nations, then the UN, for example, were set up to "maintain" peace. But the 20th century saw the most devastating and murderous wars in history! No agreement to limit the activities of the multinationals in their relentless quest for profits is possible. Measures in favour of the environment (and the far-reaching transformation of the productive apparatus and transport system these imply) come up against the interests of enterprises (and their shareholders!) because by increasing costs they decrease profits. Humans are capable, whatever the form of production, of integrating themselves into a stable ecosystem. That was the case of many "primitive" societies which coexisted in complete harmony with the rest of nature, and there is nothing whatsoever that prevents this being possible today on the basis of industrial technology and methods of production, all the more so that renewable energies exist (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, waves, biomass, etc) but, for the capitalists, these are a "cost" which penalises them in face of international competition. So it's not production as such (i. e., the fashioning of nature to meet human needs) which is incompatible with a stable balance of nature, but the application of certain productive methods which disregard natural balances or which involve changes that are too rapid to allow a natural balance to develop. The preservation of the environment is a social problem which requires humanity to establish a viable and stable relationship with the rest of nature. In practice this implies a society which uses, as far as possible, renewable energy and raw material resources and which practises the recycling of non-renewable resources; a society which, once an appropriate balance with nature has been formed, will tend towards a stable level of production, indeed towards "zero growth". This does not mean that changes are to be excluded on principle, but that any change will have to respect the environment by taking place at a pace to which nature can adapt. But the employment by capitalism of destructive methods of production has, over two centuries, upset the balance of nature. Whether it is called "the market economy", "economic liberalism", "free enterprise" or any other euphemism, the social system under which we live is capitalism. Under this system the means of the production and distribution of social wealth – the means of society's existence – are the exclusive property of a dominant parasitic minority – the holders of capital, or capitalist class – for whose benefit they are inevitably managed. As a system governed by economic laws which impose themselves as external constraints on human productive activities, and in which enterprises are in competition with each other to obtain short-term economic gains, capitalism pushes economic decision-makers to adopt productive methods which serve profitability rather than concern for the future. So it is not "Man" but the capitalist economic system itself which is responsible for ecological problems. In fact, not only have workers no influence over the decisions taken by enterprises but those who do have the power to decide - the capitalists - are themselves subject to the laws of profit and competition. Of course capitalism has sooner or later to face up to the ecological problems caused by the search for profit, but only afterwards, after the damage has been done. But the ecologists, so critical of "liberal" capitalism, accept, like all the other varieties of reformism, the economic dictatorship of the owning minority since they don't understand the link that exists between the destruction of the environment and the private ownership of the means of production. That is why the Greens were forced to make concessions when, from 1997-2002, they were part of the Jospin government: over the authorisations given by this government of the "plural" Left, in November 1997 and July 1998, for transgenetic maize, over nuclear questions and other matters, not to mention their complicity over "social" questions such as the suppression of 3100 jobs with the closure of the Renault factory at Vilvord or the repression of the occupation of employment offices by the unemployed in 1997, the closure of the naval shipyards in Le Havre in 1998, the calling into question of retirement at age 60 with a full pension, or the suppression of 10,000 hospital beds in the Ile de France in 1999, etc. Because by definition capitalism can only function in the interest of the capitalists, no palliative, no rearrangement, no measure, no reform can (nor ever will be able to) subordinate capitalist private property to the general interest. For this reason only the threat of a socialist movement setting down as the only realistic and immediate aim the establishment of social property (hence the name socialism) of society's means of existence so as to ensure their management by (and so in the interest of) the whole community, would be able to force the capitalists to concede reforms favourable to the workers for fear of losing the whole cake. So it is for building such a movement that we launch an appeal to all workers who understand the opposition and incompatibility of their interests with those of the capitalists, to all those who, concerned about the ceaseless attacks of which we are the victims and of the dangers to which the capitalists are exposing our planet, want not to patch up but to end existing society. Our numerical superiority allows all hope. It is only after having placed the means of society's existence under the control of the community that we will be able to at last ensure their management, no longer in the selfish interest of their present owners, but this time really in the general interest. Only then will we be in a position to achieve a world in which the present system of rival States will be replaced by a world community without frontiers, the rationing of money and the wages system by free access to the wealth produced, competition by cooperation, and class antagonism by social equality. We can only "cure the planet" by establishing a society without private productive property or profit where humans will be freed from the uncontrollable economic laws of the pursuit of profit and the accumulation of capital. In short, only a world socialist society, based on the common ownership and democratic control of natural resources, is compatible with production that respects the natural environment. Translated from a leaflet distributed by socialists in France. Printed in the latest <a href="http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html">Socialist Standard</a>. <table id="betterb"><tbody><tr><td> </td></tr><tr><th> </th> <td style="overflow: hidden; width: 570px;" class="blacktextnb10"> WORKERS MUST RESPOND TO GLOBAL WARMING CATACLYSM In November the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) submitted its fourth report on global warming (GW) to the United Nations. It reported unequivocal and dramatic evidence that global warming is a human-made effect that will drastically alter environments worldwide, and affect economic and political systems for the entire human race. The report documents the rates at which GW is taking place and the devastation it is causing, and offers scenarios for mitigation of GW based on future productions of greenhouse gases. The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, used the IPC report as a resource in working towards new accords on global warming. But still with the urgency of dealing with the potential catastrophic implications of this report, the process is painfully slow and retarded by the need to protect capitalist profits and economic growth. A key conclusion of the report states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level." It continues: "Eleven of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850)....The temperature increase is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans....Rising sea level is consistent with warming....Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming....average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk....Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres." The cause: "Changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols, land-cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system. Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since preindustrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004." "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80 percent between 1970 and 2004....Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed preindustrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years." [Note: From 1958 to 2005, CO2 levels, as measured directly by the late Dr. Charles David Keeling, a world authority on greenhouse gases, went from 315 ppm (parts per million) to 378 ppm, an increase of 20 percent. (BBC News, Dec. 3)] Further the report notes: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." Countering claims by antiglobal warming critics that solar radiance changes account for warming, the report notes that "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would LIKELY have produced cooling [rather than heating]. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings." But what about the future? Here the report offers predictions based on a variety of approaches. It appears likely that in the current political situation, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow for several decades. And the report declares, "Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would VERY LIKELY be larger than those observed during the 20th century." A particularly ominous situation is one in which warming or increased ocean acidity decreases the solubility of CO2 and releases it rather than taking it up. The report delineated impacts of GW on water supplies, ecosystems, food, coasts and health, and broke down effects by geographic regions throughout the world. It also tabulated examples of expected extreme weather events along with their human impacts. For the long term, the report notes that GW and sea level rise would continue for centuries, even after greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. And some impacts could be abrupt and irreversible. Lastly, the report looked at mitigation of GW and its effects. These examined various strategies for reducing GHG emissions and mitigating the economic, political and social problems that are being caused by GW. Not surprisingly, poor countries are most at risk. Andrew Revkin observes (THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 28) that the report "offers a more detailed view of how poverty, particularly in areas near the equator, creates zones of extreme vulnerability to water shortages, droughts, flooding, rains and severe storms--all of which are projected to be more frequent or intense if concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to build." It also "rebukes rich countries for failing to deliver on commitments for helping poor countries increase resilience to climate hazards under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which dates from 1992 and has been ratified by nearly all the world's nations." The IPCC report was intended as a resource for the U.N. Climate Change Conference that took place in Bali, Indonesia, in December. The conference was meant to start a two-year negotiation process working towards a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. From the beginning, the Bush administration has done its best to undermine the talks--and show its contempt for the United Nations--by scheduling its own meetings, one in late September with 16 major carbon-emitting nations, and another in January in Hawaii. At the Bali conference differences between richer and poorer nations were evident as "developing countries demanded the United States agree that the eventual pact not only measure poorer countries' steps, but also the effectiveness of financial aid and technological assistance from wealthier ones." (Thomas Fuller, Andrew C. Revkin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Dec. 15) U.S. recalcitrance on this issue led delegates to boo and hiss U.S. delegates. Eventually the United States capitulated on this issue. The United States, as had been the case with Kyoto, still refused to be held to fixed targets for emissions, but allowed them to appear in a nonbinding preamble to the agreement, giving the appearance of compliance with the accord produced by the conference. But for all the urgency represented by the report and the conference, rolling back greenhouse gas production will depend upon capitalist schemes like "cap and trade" that allow some companies to profit from reducing emissions while polluters pay for "carbon credits" and a variety of other reforms like limits on gas mileage. These merely slow the increase in greenhouse gas production. However, there is no time to delay. Scientists estimate that to reverse the existing buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world will need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 70 percent by the end of this century. Such changes will require restructuring the world's energy and transportation systems. They require massive investment and represent a threat to existing capitalist industries, their growth and profits. Capitalism requires profit and economic growth to survive. Capitalists want their profits now. The future has little meaning in a profit-driven society. Environmental reforms are not the answer. Capitalism has eroded those feeble efforts of the past whenever it is expedient to do so. International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol are not the answer, either. Similar agreements on disarmament, on peace, on torture litter history, as do the bleached bones and broken bodies of tens of millions whose fate proved just what such agreements are worth. If the future is not to be plagued with the floods, droughts and other catastrophes predicted related to global warming, the political and economic system of capitalism must end, not just in the United States but also throughout the world. The urgency expressed in the Bali conference demonstrates the international nature of this crisis. And as workers throughout the world are exploited, so will they be the first victims of worldwide ecological collapse. In a socialist society of production for use rather than profit, we could divert the intellectual and productive capabilities of society toward seeking the technical solutions to global warming and producing them. The Socialist Labor Party urges workers to organize to abolish capitalism and institute socialist production for use. Workers must realize their latent economic and political power as operators of the industries and services and begin forming industrywide unions integrated into one movement with the goal of building a new society with completely different motives for production--human needs and wants instead of profit--and to organize their own political party to challenge the political power of the capitalists, express their mandate for change at the ballot box and dismantle the state altogether. The new society they must aim for must be one in which society itself, not a wealthy few, would own the industries and services, and the workers themselves would control them democratically through their own organizations based in the workplaces. In such a society, the workers themselves would make decisions governing the economy, electing representatives to industrial councils and to a workers' congress representing all the industries that would administer the economy. Such a society--a socialist industrial democracy--is what is needed to solve the environmental crisis. By placing the economic decision-making power of the nation in the hands of the workers, by eliminating capitalist control and the profit motive in favor of a system in which workers produce to meet their own needs and wants, the necessary resources and labor could be devoted to halting global warming, employing the renewable resources we now have available and develop new ones, and clean up the damage already done. --Bruce Cozzini <a href="http://www.slp.org/pdf/thepeople/jan_feb08TP.pdf">The People January-February 2008</a> VOL. 117 NO. 5</td></tr></tbody></table>arminiushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12442742315889493895noreply@blogger.com