Article: Sources and Authorities: Dissidents Against Dogma, ALEXANDER COCKBURN, June 10, Counter Punch
This is a pretty crazy article i was reading yesterday, basically Alexander Cockburn (who is one of the counterpunch magazine editors) uses all sorts of long debunked myths about why climate change is a hoax. He uses this as a bases for attacking the left for buying into the "rubbish" and failing to see that it has been created by capitalism to justify ramping up energy prices and forcing working class people to pay more for stuff they need.
Unfortunately he fails to realise that scientists have been arguing for several decades now that climate change is a reality, and something that Governments must respond to immediately. Since then the less accurate science has been vindicated by more and more complex modelling and observing real changes to the climate.
The problem is that we live within a Capitalist society that seeks to commodify everything and put a price tag on everything so they can get some profits out of it. This means that some companies have entered the "green market" to try and make a few bucks out of genuine concern by working class people about the environment. But it also means that when Governments are forced to acknowledge climate change they aren't going to put forward solutions that go beyond the bounds of capitalism (er, duh!), but rather will hope to minimise the economic impact to business, while creating the illusion that something is being done - that something being funded by working people. Thus we have "carbon trading" and carbon taxes, which will force prices up on energy for households, while big corporations like BHP will continue to pay nothing for the 33 million litres of water it uses per day to run a Uranium mine in Roxby Downs (nor will it pay for the upgrade which will require a further 120 million litres of water per day).
But also pro-capitalist governments will suggest the maintanence of big base load power stations and suggest switching from the cheap polluting source of power - coal and oil, to slightly less polluting options and cheap sources of power - Nuclear and hydrogen. Maybe if there is a significant environment movement those governments might be forced to introduce programs that incorporate clean renewables into the grid, but that's more likely to be a small part of the energy production process in the short term.
As it stands Capitalism will try to worm its way out of the climate crises, by midly limiting the impact with some measures that appease the mass sentiment and trying to recorrect market mechanisms to allow a more "green friendly" capitalist production process. However if we look at the alternatives of Cuba and Venezuela, who are constructing a very different society with a consciously socialist leadership, we can see how climate change can comprehensively challenged outside of a captialist framework.
Recently the Venezuela Government disallowed the development of coal mine in the state of Zulia, because the Indigenous people organised against it because of the damage it would have to their health and environment. They are also planting millions of trees to curb the massive deforestation created by the need to fuel capitalist production, but also for the huge cattle stations owned by rich latifundia. They also have a massive organic garden planted right in the middle of Caracas, have organised the community to install millions of energy efficient light bulbs, are building an extensive public rail network throughout the country, plus they have threatened to nationalise any company that is caught illegally polluting the environment. Venezuela is following in the foot-steps of Cuba who managed to overturn their dependence on oil, develop an extensive permaculture industry, and become the only sustainable country in the world (by WWF standards) after 15 years.
Those concerned about unsustainable practices and corporate plundering should spend more time trying to build the environment movement to politically challenge the polluters, rather than trying revive the "debate" about whether global warming is happening or not.
This is a pretty crazy article i was reading yesterday, basically Alexander Cockburn (who is one of the counterpunch magazine editors) uses all sorts of long debunked myths about why climate change is a hoax. He uses this as a bases for attacking the left for buying into the "rubbish" and failing to see that it has been created by capitalism to justify ramping up energy prices and forcing working class people to pay more for stuff they need.
Unfortunately he fails to realise that scientists have been arguing for several decades now that climate change is a reality, and something that Governments must respond to immediately. Since then the less accurate science has been vindicated by more and more complex modelling and observing real changes to the climate.
The problem is that we live within a Capitalist society that seeks to commodify everything and put a price tag on everything so they can get some profits out of it. This means that some companies have entered the "green market" to try and make a few bucks out of genuine concern by working class people about the environment. But it also means that when Governments are forced to acknowledge climate change they aren't going to put forward solutions that go beyond the bounds of capitalism (er, duh!), but rather will hope to minimise the economic impact to business, while creating the illusion that something is being done - that something being funded by working people. Thus we have "carbon trading" and carbon taxes, which will force prices up on energy for households, while big corporations like BHP will continue to pay nothing for the 33 million litres of water it uses per day to run a Uranium mine in Roxby Downs (nor will it pay for the upgrade which will require a further 120 million litres of water per day).
But also pro-capitalist governments will suggest the maintanence of big base load power stations and suggest switching from the cheap polluting source of power - coal and oil, to slightly less polluting options and cheap sources of power - Nuclear and hydrogen. Maybe if there is a significant environment movement those governments might be forced to introduce programs that incorporate clean renewables into the grid, but that's more likely to be a small part of the energy production process in the short term.
As it stands Capitalism will try to worm its way out of the climate crises, by midly limiting the impact with some measures that appease the mass sentiment and trying to recorrect market mechanisms to allow a more "green friendly" capitalist production process. However if we look at the alternatives of Cuba and Venezuela, who are constructing a very different society with a consciously socialist leadership, we can see how climate change can comprehensively challenged outside of a captialist framework.
Recently the Venezuela Government disallowed the development of coal mine in the state of Zulia, because the Indigenous people organised against it because of the damage it would have to their health and environment. They are also planting millions of trees to curb the massive deforestation created by the need to fuel capitalist production, but also for the huge cattle stations owned by rich latifundia. They also have a massive organic garden planted right in the middle of Caracas, have organised the community to install millions of energy efficient light bulbs, are building an extensive public rail network throughout the country, plus they have threatened to nationalise any company that is caught illegally polluting the environment. Venezuela is following in the foot-steps of Cuba who managed to overturn their dependence on oil, develop an extensive permaculture industry, and become the only sustainable country in the world (by WWF standards) after 15 years.
Those concerned about unsustainable practices and corporate plundering should spend more time trying to build the environment movement to politically challenge the polluters, rather than trying revive the "debate" about whether global warming is happening or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment