Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 904 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We shouldn’t single out the USA as an exception.
There has been a whole series of extreme weather events across the world that have exposed the vulnerability of even the wealthier nations to flooding, heatwaves, storms.
I know, there is not nation prepared for all these catastrophic events, like most of them are not prepared to provide adequate medical services to the workers. Capitalism is a disaster and a failure all over the world, but still millions of peoples do not understand that
Some say capitalism cannot fix problems. Sometimes it can
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/30/un-hails-milestone-as-use-of-leaded-petrol-ended-globally
Leaded petrol has ended globally
It only took a century
1.2 million premature lives will be averted and a rise in children’s IQ is predicted
If oil revenues start to decline before producer countries have successfully diversified their economies, livelihoods will be lost and poverty rates will increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/01/oil-producing-countries-net-zero-2050-iraq
Twenty livestock companies are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than either Germany, Britain or France – and are receiving billions of dollars in financial backing to do so, according to the Meat Atlas, which was compiled by Friends of the Earth and the European political foundation, Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
Raising livestock contributes significantly to carbon emissions, with animal agriculture accounting for 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific reports have found that rich countries need huge reductions in meat and dairy consumption to tackle the climate emergency.
George Monbiot’s ominous warning
The old assumption that the Earth’s tipping points are a long way off is beginning to look unsafe.
A new global survey illustrates the depth of anxiety many young people are feeling about climate change.
Nearly 60% of young people approached said they felt very worried or extremely worried.
More than 45% of those questioned said feelings about the climate affected their daily lives.
Three-quarters of them said they thought the future was frightening. Over half (56%) say they think humanity is doomed.
Two-thirds reported feeling sad, afraid and anxious. Many felt fear, anger, despair, grief and shame
Here’s a killer admission from the Business Secretary:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kwasi-kwarteng-blames-free-market-for-global-warming-l3dm9dpnn
He is reported as saying;
“If market solutions naturally greened the world, we wouldn’t be where we are. Clearly there’s been a market failure.”
Our case has always been based upon the premise that resources must go to uplifting those in poverty even if it may entail growing the world economy when we rather reduce production.
This article provides technical details on the future use of energy to still raise the standards of the poor to a decent level and would be useful in citing as a source.
Our research shows that current global energy consumption is already, in principle, sufficient to provide everyone with a decent life. But this will happen only if there is a stronger focus on providing the energy to serve basic needs rather than growing affluence.
For instance, while global energy supply under pathways that limit global temperature increase to 1.5C is more than enough to provide for basic needs, as well as some affluence, projected DLS [decent living standards]energy needs for some regions and countries can go up to or exceed half of the total. (Faster energy efficiency improvements would reduce this ratio.)
Together, this means that while eradicating multidimensional poverty is compatible with ambitious climate targets, it does likely require a shift towards more equitable energy, climate and development policies, both within and between countries.
Regenerative farming – producing food while restoring the land.
This more natural form of agriculture will not suit all farmers, many of whom are used to intensive farming: “If you’re a tenanted farmer, you’ve got a high rent, and you need to pay the bills, then you need to do what you need to do to make ends meet.
Can women alone solve the food problem?
Giving women a seat at the policymaking table could accelerate Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and keep the world fed and nourished, Food Tank President Danielle Nierenberg, a top researcher and advocate on food systems and agriculture.
“If we had women farmers running municipalities, towns and even countries, that is where change would really happen.”http://www.ipsnews.net/2021/09/women-farmers-politicians-world-fed-says-danielle-nierenberg/
Isn’t she missing the point? There is no input in decision-making from women because it is the corporations that are in control, not small-holders whether they be male or female.
And in an exchange economy of buying and selling, does gender really matter?
Yes, she is missing the point. Several points, actually. Even if more women were to be involved in decision-making (as simple democratic principles demand), under capitalism what can realistically be decided is constrained by the economic laws of the system. After all, we have seen, and still have, plenty of women prime ministers, other ministers, mayors and local councillors and that hasn’t made any difference.
As has been said, humans might propose but capitalism disposes. It is only on the basis of the common ownership of productive resources that the decisions humans make can be effectively put into practice with the desired result, where we can both propose and dispose.
I suppose she is focused on the peasant economy where women are subsistence farming for their immediate family and local village markets. Indeed, in many cultures they are deprived of formal ownership and often deprived of control of those small-holdings by patriarchal traditions.
Scaling up the food production to plantation industrial cash-crop agriculture and women do disappear from the issue, but as also do poor men.
A rather revealing article on what some consider to be ecosocialism
“…Under ecosocialism there would be no Wall Street. An ecosocialist society could restrict the use of money by individuals solely to buy things, and leave publicly owned banks as the sole sources of capital for new developments, e.g. to build or upgrade healthcare centers, energy storage facilities, community centers and parks; remediate environmental destruction; and support agricultural, artistic, and recreational endeavors of all sorts. But banks would be prohibited from making capital loans for the purpose of profiteering from the work of others…”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.