Extinction Rebellion
- This topic has 447 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dave, are you capable of starting a single post with a word other than “Actually”?
Your mention of Greta’s condition is simply low. It has absolutely nothing to do with her message, maybe with her methods, but definitely not her message. Just acknowledge that you are simply wrong on this.
In times of capitalist propaganda taking most of the mass media time, being “preoccupied with a narrow subject” and repeating your message may well turn out to be a winning strategy, by the way. You really need to hammer in your point to be heard in this noise. Besides, why are you being so negative about this? What better alternative strategy are you proposing and personally pursuing?
“Dave, are you capable of starting a single post with a word other than “Actually”?”
Very unlikely, actually. Hang on there, I just did. 😆
“What better alternative strategy are you proposing and personally pursuing?”
Proposing and personally pursuing, for over 40 years, a totally different way of organising and running society. It’s called socialism. Actually, you could try doing the same. 😛
I don’t see anything wrong in the article published in the Socialist Standard, and I do not see anything wrong with what Dave has expressed
This blog post appeared recently:
https://jembendell.com/2019/08/14/a-quick-message-to-lefty-intellectuals-about-deep-adaptation/#comments
XR’s next big UK event is in London on 7th and 8th October 2019 when it hopes to create major disruption. Jim Bendell’s 2018 paper on Deep Adaptation, predicting the inevitability of social collapse, forms the basis of XR’s thinking and strategy. I don’t know whether we have any lefty intellectuals among us – or if we do they would probably not wish to admit it – but given that social collapse must be one plausible outcome perhaps we should have something to say about it?
Here’s my answer to Jem Bendell, posted here a few days out:
I’ve just finished reading the XR Handbook, This is Not a Drill published for them by Penguins, which expounds the ideology behind their actions.
Here’s an example of their alarmism, from Professor Jem Bendell (echoed by Roger Hallam in that interview):
“My guess is that, within ten years from now, a social collapse of some form will have occurred in the majority of countries round the world … A likely collapse in rain-fed agriculture means that governments need to prepare for how to ration some basic foodstuffs …”
I predict that in ten years time he’ll have egg on his face. If I’m wrong, I’ll let him have some of my ration tickets.
Scientists are starting to join Extinction Rebellion. Paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution from Sept. 2
Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity
“We face the complete loss of sea ice, tropical rainforests and coral reefs, and will suffer heatwaves, droughts and storms that may render much of the planet uninhabitable and cause devastating human suffering and conflict.”
Maybe we should stop using the word “alarmism”, and actually start taking seriously what climate and ecology scientists are saying.
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?
“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?”
What we do is join in the demonstrations to try to communicate what is the root cause so that “the problem and its consequences can be dealt with rationally?”
It does mean being alarmist, ALB, it is unavoidable because by indicating that the mainstream environmentalist’s trust and faith in a government approach does not hold the answer and therefore if we don’t establish socialism then all their fears are well founded and come to fruition. The scare-mongering becomes reality.
Either we argue the capitalism is incapable of providing solutions and therefore we are inevitably heading towards the intensifying consequences of climate change.
Or we join the reformers in agreeing that capitalism has remedies to cure the climate crises and revolutionary alternatives are not necessary.
Despite our small numbers we need to get a hearing and our voice won’t be heard if we are not present in the debate and discussions. These conversations are not taking place in meeting halls but on the internet, social media but more importantly on the actual protests and demonstrations, themselves. We need to prominently display our banner at every event for people to see and muster under.
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.
Either we argue the capitalism is incapable of providing solutions and therefore we are inevitably heading towards the intensifying consequences of climate change.
You are missing the point by suggesting there are “solutions” when there are none even if we had socialism. The fact of the matter is – as you well know – the best we can offer is a more positive framework for tackling the effects of climate change.
Indeed, it would be disingenuous to state otherwise.
ALB, you seem to assume that XR are counting on the present government to solve the problem. In fact, one of their 3 main demands is to establish Citizens’ Assembly, which would work
instead ofalongside the government. I am now trying to talk to them and convince to make a better, more detailed plan, but even this is already quite good (maybe precisely because it’s so simplistic). What if a Citizens’ Assembly decides we need to change our economic system? Apparently, it would depend on the advice they would get from “the specialists”.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 ?
Brian, there are solutions out there, and world socialism is the only society that can implement them.
In a stroke, we abolish the waste of armament production. Military are excluded from statistics in all climate agreements, at least up to a few years ago. Off-limits.
Arms is 4% of global GDP. The US military alone use the same amount as fuel as all the UK does. Carbon emissions for the US military gives it the footprint larger than many nations such as Sweden
And imagine the increase of labour availability with no armies is just another prime example. The largest concentration of scientific knowledge is used to ensure military dominance.
I haven’t even mentioned the re-direction of resources from wars and conflicts.
We can reduce the rate of carbon emissions on the short term and we can then reverse the effects of climate change on the long term. Whatever negative impacts we inherit can be focused upon and tackled.
But once again our priority is to maintain that we can have both growth in production and overall consumption and sustainable production – our pledge to the billions of people who do not have security of a decent life. We are not just offering to feed the world but to present a nutritious, wholesome choice of menus. Our housing is not simply boxes with running water and electricity but communities. We should not shy away from declaring that the worse socialism will create will equal the best capitalism presently produces.
This is the dividing line between environmentalists and ourselves who all in one way or another advocate de-growth to different degrees.
It is what Sylvia Pankhurst drew the distinction about almost a hundred years ago.
“We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. Our desire is not to make poor those who to-day are rich, in order to put the poor in the place where the rich now are. Our desire is not to pull down the present rulers to put other rulers in their places. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume. Such a great production is already possible, with the knowledge already possessed by mankind. To-day production is artificially checked, consumption still more so.”
That is the very same message we take to the self-denying environmentalists but more importantly to our fellow-workers who do fear the dire predictions of the future put forward even by their saviours.
Fully Automated Luxury Communism, not just a utopian fantasy but an aspiration that only socialism can make into reality.
This is what separates us from the eco-activists – and to think i’m the one accused of doom and gloom pessimism.
Brian, there are solutions out there, and world socialism is the only society that can implement them.
Alan, if by “solutions” you are referring to climate change you seemed to have forgotten that the beast – Co2 – has already been unleashed and there’s no stopping it whatever steps are taken. We could possibly mitigate or alleviate the effects of rising sea levels with socialism – and obviously with a socialist framework the means for climate adaptation would have a positive outcome – but has for putting the genie back in the bottle it just can’t be done.
We can reduce the rate of carbon emissions on the short term and we can then reverse the effects of climate change on the long term. Whatever negative impacts we inherit can be focused upon and tackled.
Here you are asking for the impossible. For its impossible to reduce the rate of carbon emissions in the short term and the effects of climate change according to the scientific evidence are going to felt long into the future. But nevertheless, we will be able to reduce the effects of Co2 in the long term.
I note that you’re adopting a change in emphasis with “tackled” rather than “solution”. About bloody time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8 and here: #189980
I talked about the rate of carbon emissions being reduced in the short term and I offered the example of the end of the arms trade and military which substantially and almost immediately reduces GHG being emitted
But elsewhere I did say that dealing with global poverty would have to be compensated by savings elsewhere and the re-allocation of resources from this sector may well suffice. The maths still to be done.
However, we have not yet even considered the other aspects of the exchange economy that will be superfluous and redundant. Darren has re-posted old 1960s articles on transport that still of relevance, today.
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/09/coping-with-car-1964.html
I know others disagree but I have also argued that lifestyle consumption patterns such as the luxury of meat-eating being greatly reduced are also on the table as an almost immediate means of reducing the rate of CO2 emissions (and methane)
On the long term, CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere is my understanding of the science in that we can develop carbon sinks and somewhere else on this thread I mentioned reforestation and rewilding as an example but there are other approaches rather than natural ones such as the presently unpopular eco-engineering projects but we also go against the trend by also arguing for more use of nuclear power alongside the renewable energy resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/carbon-sinks.php
I have often referred to runaway climate change and reaching the tipping points that bring us to that stage of no-return. These are still being debated and the science is still undecided and some on the forum suggest it is alarmist to say we are there already, much like those eco-overpopulationists say we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet which we obviously haven’t.
But we must determine what you once called the socialist unique selling point, (I rarely forget influences on my way of thinking).
I hold that we must be able to widen the environmentalist case with the socialist case which has to be, (to use another of your own expressions), positive action.
We do offer hope of what is possible, not as you say, unrealisable. Only under capitalism is there no solutions.
The choice as always lies not with our answers but whether people hear it and accept it. We fail on the former so logically it is not accepted as an option for people to choose from. What can be more ecologically sound than when in 1848 the separation of town and country is challenged?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.