This is a draft editorial for the new magazine. Constructive comments are welcome.

We describe Socialist Resistance as an “ecosocialist” magazine. This is a new word for many socialists and environmentalists so we should offer a definition of it. It means a lot more than using environmental issues to have another kick at capitalism.

Last year we published a book called Ecosocialism or Barbarism in which we said:

“Hardly anyone now doubts that humanity is facing an enormous environmental crisis. The recent report by the International Panel on Climate Change, although watered down to meet the objections of the worst polluters, spells out what this means in graphic detail. …It is now obvious that this morbid phase of capitalism has brought upon humanity the biggest ever threat to its existence – the threat of environmental catastrophe.”

Our political conclusion is:

“This new phase of capitalism forces an inevitable conclusion – only by a total transformation in politics and production, in other words a transformation of our social relations, can a sustainable future for humanity be established.”

Ecosocialism is the cross-fertilisation of ecological ideas in the Marxist left and the spread of Marxist ideas in the green movement. It is becoming more and more common for environmentalists to point at the ecological situation and attribute much human created global warming and environmental destruction to the capitalist economic model. At the same time some socialists have been rethinking their own assumptions about continuous growth of production as a requirement of a socialist society and many of us owe a great debt to the pioneering writings of John Bellamy Foster who has reminded us of Marxism’s contribution to ecological thinking.

The transformation of politics and production we are fighting for will oblige us to replace capitalism with a society in which common ownership of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership, and in which the preservation and restoration of ecosystems will be central to all activity. Capitalism’s need to make profits and produce destructive, wasteful useful things is not something that we will be able to modify with reforms. To do that we need a revolutionary change in the way we govern, produce, distribute and consume. From this it follows that economic and political power have to be taken away from capitalists and their politicians and put in the hands of working people and their communities.

Ecosocialism is much more advanced outside the rich world. That’s especially true in Latin America, where anti-imperialist governments headed by Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Raul Castro in Cuba, are pressing for strong anti-capitalist, pro-environment measures. In countries like Bolivia global warming is melting the glaciers on which millions of people rely for water. Bringing ecology into politics is a matter of life and death all across the planet.

This new magazine has set itself the ambition of becoming the principal English language ecosocialist publication. Our future coverage will take up the debates that are taking place in the working class and environmental movements in Britain and internationally. We are also committed to building actions, mobilisations and movements. Our supporters helped build the successful Campaign Against Climate Change trade union conference on 9 February which saw 300 TU activists gather to discuss developing trade union policy to build the widest possible coalition for effective action. This was the first of its sort anywhere and we argue that to achieve a massive reorganisation of society we must win the trade unions’ millions of members to committed action.

In Britain the campaign against the Third Runway at Heathrow is a key episode in the fight to stop New Labour and the big corporations vastly expanding air traffic. The Brown government engages in green-washing rhetoric, sets targets which it does not intend meeting, and wants to see people concentrating on individual measures at the expense of the bigger picture, leaving it free to continue pursuing its policies of expanding air traffic and roads and eco-hostile housing regardless of the devastating consequences to the environment. The Climate Camp last year made a big media impact; it is vital that this early success is built on to defeat the plans. Be there on 31 May!

Speaking at the trade union conference Tony Kearns of the Communication Workers Union said that there are now two types of trade unionist. Those who take the environment seriously and those who don’t – but very soon there will only be one type. We want to make the same thing happen with socialists and ecologists. We all have to start thinking of ourselves as ecosocialists.

46 responses to “What do we mean by "ecosocialist"? – draft editorial”

  1. Ecosocialism is barbarism of the english language.

    Like

  2. You may wish to add a reference to the Ecosocialist International Network, which your groupo played such a big role in launching. — Ian Angus

    Like

  3. Green From Below Avatar
    Green From Below

    Here is my initial response:

    It means a lot more than using environmental issues to have another kick at capitalism.

    This is a key sentence in my opinion. Many of us are used to seeing the Left picking up ideas such as environmentalism and instead of actually engaging with their content, using them to pad out their own already existing ideaology. Some kind of real engagement is necessary and a consequent evolution of ideas and actions is what I would like to see come out of a Left / Green dialogue via ecosocialism.

    Our political conclusion is:

    “This new phase of capitalism forces an inevitable conclusion – only by a total transformation in politics and production, in other words a transformation of our social relations, can a sustainable future for humanity be established.”

    Again, I have little real disagreement here. However, I would caution against slipping into the terminology of “phases of capitalism” for a couple of reasons. First, the predictions of the far-Left regarding the various phases etc. have tended to both be inaccurate and a stumbling block to action. Debates and disagreements of this nature are from my point of view offputting. Secondly, whilst right here, right now we can (and must) focus on capitalism we must recognise the environmental degradation caused by pre-capitalist societies and the consequences that these had.

    Ecosocialism is the cross-fertilisation of ecological ideas in the Marxist left and the spread of Marxist ideas in the green movement. It is becoming more and more common for environmentalists to point at the ecological situation and attribute much human created global warming and environmental destruction to the capitalist economic model.

    It should also be noted that not everyone in the ecosocialist current is moving leftwards from some kind of liberal environmentalism towards Marxism, many of us have always maintained a clear anticapitalism without necessarily adopting Marxist ideas.

    At the same time some socialists have been rethinking their own assumptions about continuous growth of production as a requirement of a socialist society and many of us owe a great debt to the pioneering writings of John Bellamy Foster who has reminded us of Marxism’s contribution to ecological thinking.

    This is a good step. Too often in the past in debates with the Left I’ve encounterd a manic productivism, with a caveat that a socialist socioety would automatically be better for the environment.

    The transformation of politics and production we are fighting for will oblige us to replace capitalism with a society in which common ownership of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership, and in which the preservation and restoration of ecosystems will be central to all activity. Capitalism’s need to make profits and produce destructive, wasteful useful things is not something that we will be able to modify with reforms. To do that we need a revolutionary change in the way we govern, produce, distribute and consume. From this it follows that economic and political power have to be taken away from capitalists and their politicians and put in the hands of working people and their communities.

    Once again, I have nothing to disagree with here. Although, I don’t think we should underestimate capitalism’s abilty to transform limited environmentaol reform into profit. We are already seeing steps taken towards this. Capitalism may well be able to put the crisis on hold long enough to squeeze a bit more profit out of it.

    Ecosocialism is much more advanced outside the rich world. That’s especially true in Latin America, where anti-imperialist governments headed by Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Raul Castro in Cuba, are pressing for strong anti-capitalist, pro-environment measures.

    Whilst moves taken in these countries are certainly positive, we should remain cautious about their extent and be on guard against any strain of authoritarianism that may be present within left populism. A cautious welcome, for sure, but not cheerleading.

    This new magazine has set itself the ambition of becoming the principal English language ecosocialist publication.

    Will it be truely non-partisan? Many of us remember another small Trotskyist grouplet liquidising itself to produce a new voive for the movement…WRP(Workers Press) if I recall correctly folded to produce Reclaim the Future for the RTS/EF!/antiroads etc movements. Not sommething wanted by the movements themselves.

    I’m cautious about anyone claiming to be the “voice” of what is still an amorphous current. Would the title change to reflect this?

    Having said all of this, I like forward to seeing how your project develops and whether it fits into the grassroots, autonomous, libertarian socialism that provides the left for my “Green Left”

    Like

  4. I think that’s a rather good, well written summary.

    Personally I find the term ‘ecosocialist’ utterly alienating but this is the first explanation I’ve seen of the it (and I’ve seen / attended a few) that actually puts the case succinctly and in an understandable way.

    Who wrote it? You? If so – good work.

    Like

  5. Thanks Jim. It was a bit of a team effort. I pulled together contributions from other people and stripped out a bit of jargon.

    Green From Below – we are all partisan and it’s not a bad thing to be. However we are trying to develop an editorial team from a range of political backgrounds. We have made some modest progress and hope to have a wider range of people involved in future issues, principally people with a record who are engaged in building broad parties, ecosocialist activists and class struggle militants – or any combination thereof. That type of thing.

    Nick – the use of varying aliases by some people in recent months has been gutless and damned close to deceitful but don’t get me started.

    Like

  6. That’s an good pitch, Liam. While I don’t call myself an ecosocialist –as I find the label cumbersome — the business of becoming one as you say has to rest on the green doing rather than just the green saying.

    But I also think it has to be incorporated in with the ways and means of embracing green ‘principles’; and processing and claiming them for socialism.

    And one feature that interests my Socialist Alliance locality at the moment is relating to the ecological design doctrine of Permaculture(check out our election flyer).

    And in reviewing that potential — I guess you come at the main feature of ecosocialism that warrants emphasis: faclitating (as the Cuba permaculture documentary says) the ‘power of community’. So in effect you need to focus on green democracy in the context of being anticapitalist.

    In my experience with green partying here the problem is tactics. Despite any numbers of great aspirations and a rich platform, it’s always a challenge of how you are going to achieve your program. And as always it is so easily fro greens to default to the pursuit of individual solutions.

    For socialists/Marxists tactics are so often the starting point as that’s what we do — we’re s tacticians day in day out. So you need to seed your editorial with a bit more of that.

    So the key thing is to get beyond propaganda I reckon and mix it with homily or two on the DIY…and maybe agitate a bit more.

    Like

  7. Two drafting issues:
    1) It’s the Intergovernmental Panel… not International
    2) “destructive, wasteful, useful things” ???

    On Cuba etc: I agree with the comment above that the results are contradictory and not wholly “ecosocialist”, mainly due to the need for the governments to negotiate their way through the world market. E.g. the price of fuel in Venezuela makes pursuing alternatives to the motor car difficult and the dependence of Cuba on tourism.

    I think that “socialists’” assumptions about the need for continuous growth comes more from social democracy than from Marxism. Thier infectious influence has been felt further left, but some Trotskyists have had a critique of this approach for a considerable time – see for example this article on climate change from 1989: http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article9466

    Finally, it might be worth mentioning the Kingsnorth (coal-fired) power station. I think that, along with Heathrow, this will be a test case, especially after Hutton’s intervention on Monday on fossil fuels.

    I think that it would probably be a mistake to demand that the power station be combined with carbon captutre and storage as a condition of its being built: there’s a difference between CCS on a gas well in Norway (1m tonnes of CO2 sequestrated a year) and one like, for instance, Drax (produces 23m tonnes of CO2 p.a.). Opposing CCS fits in with the position that continuous growth of production is not a requirement of socialism.

    We should think of alternatives to Kingsnorth, though, and not just oppose its construction. So a campaign against it should include clear proposals for energy saving, or renewables, or both. What would be great would be to see the power and construction unions involved in the issue (and Heathrow), with Green Bans like with the New South Wales Builders Labourers’ Federation in the early seventies.

    Like

  8. I would argue that socialism is ecological so socialists don’t need to describe ourselves as ecoanything.

    While Capitalists control the means of production they will continue to destroy this planet regardless of how we organise against this. Of course we must continue to fight for ecological improvements in capitalism because this can only benefit workers but only socialism can end the destruction of this panet. Without a planned economy organised from below rather than the Stalinist or Capitalist nationalised system the destruction of the environment will continue.
    Despite the claims by Western governments that they are lowering carbon emissions, in the West emissions have actually increased. That includes the UK. The West’s emissions dwarf the Indian and Chinese emissions and it is very unlikely that China and especially India will ever exceed the pollution produced by the West in the future.
    Now that the world economy is going into recession the Chinese economy is in jeopardy because it has based it’s reserves on the US dollar. As the dollar falls so does the Chinese economy.
    The bottom line is that while we must continue to struggle to make the Capitalists to tinker with their system unless we have socialism the destruction of the planet will continue.

    While socialsits should work with the Greens for ecological improvements we should also be wary of being drawn into their politics. When they have been in power they have accomodated to the Capitalist system. This has been very evident in Germany. The true ecologists have always been socialists.

    Like

  9. What are you on about? China is the largest emitter in the world overtaking the USA in 2006.
    “China’s 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the USA by 8%. This includes CO2 emissions from industrial processes (cement production). With this, China tops the list of CO2 emitting countries for the first time.”

    http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html

    And in case you hadn’t noticed the world economy isn’t going into recession. The USA is.

    Like

  10. Billj, Nothern Rock has just been nationalised and food and fuel prices are rocketing around the world. The recession might be US led but it is definitely affecting the rest of the world. China has massive reserves in US dollars. As the dollar loses value this seriously affects China’s capacity to develop.

    While I don’t take everything the Chinese state says at face value I think it would be fairly easy to verify the following:

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VBTK2O0.htm

    “When you refer to China’s emissions you neglect to mention that China has a much higher population than the US. So per person the US tops the emissions of people in China threefold.

    “Climate change is mainly attributable to long-term emissions by developed countries in the past and their current high per capital levels of emissions,” Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told reporters at the annual session of the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature.

    “The emissions of three Chinese are less than that of one person in developed countries. That is like one person who eats three slices of bread for breakfast, and three people, each of them eats one slice. Who should be on a diet?” Yang said.”

    Each person in the US produces three times more carbon emissions than in China. China will have to go a long way to catch up with that. With the US government attempting to sabotage ecological change at every opportunity how can we in the West expect India and China to take these issues seriously. Let’s also take into account that the West is exporting its waste to China and is accountable for this. Carbon emissions are increasing in the UK despite the spin of New Labour.

    Of course socialists want to influence change but until we pin the blame on the real culprits in the West rather than allow Western governments to dump (literally) all the blame on India and China then the struggle to prevent global warming will be diverted down a dead end.

    Like

  11. Ray said:
    “Without a planned economy organised from below rather than the Stalinist or Capitalist nationalised system the destruction of the environment will continue.”

    However…. this is a necessary but not sufficient condition. This is something that has not been understood by all socialists, all marxists, or even all trotskyists. You also need to have some idea of what you plan to do. Is it this, for instance:

    “Communist life will not be formed blindly, like coral islands, but will be built consciously, will be tested by thought, will be directed and corrected. Life will cease to be elemental, and for this reason stagnant. Man, who will learn how to move rivers and mountains, how to build peoples’ palaces on the peaks of Mont Blanc and at the bottom of the Atlantic, will not only be able to add to his own life richness, brilliancy and intensity, but also a dynamic quality of the highest degree. The shell of life will hardly have time to form before it will burst open again under the pressure of new technical and cultural inventions and achievements. Life in the future will not be monotonous.”

    or should we use the following as a guide to action:

    “The overcoming of the contradiction between agriculture and industry presupposes the industrialisation of arable and pastoral farming, horticulture and so on. It means … the use of machines on a large scale and in the right combination …” etc.

    or is this the type of development we should follow:

    “Not long ago, we opened Shatura power station, one of our best constructions, erected on a peat bog. From Moscow to Shatura is only about 100 kilometres. You might say the two places could shake hands. And yet what a difference in conditions! Moscow is the capital of the Communist International. But you go a few dozen kilometres and you are in the backwoods, with snow-laden fir trees, frozen marshes and wild beasts. Dark hamlets of log huts are dozing in the snow. From the carriage window you can sometimes see the tracks of wolves. Where the Shatura station stands today, a few years ago, when they began construction work there, elks had their homes. Today, the distance between Shatura and Moscow is covered by an elegant series of metal masts, which carry cables with a current of 115,000 volts. And under these masts vixens and she-wolves bring forth their cubs …. Shatura lives on peat, as though on pasture…. machines that occupy very little space are eating up an age-old bog, transforming it into an invisible power and returning it along lightweight cables to that very industry which created and set up these machines.”

    Trotsky may have had reasons and excuses for his technological super-optimism. But it is not applicable at all today. You can’t just say “socialism is ecological” – and leave it at that.

    Like

  12. Ray said:
    “Each person in the US produces three times more carbon emissions than in China.”

    It depends which person you are talking about….. China’s new bourgeoisie is perfectly capable of emitting as much carbon as the US’s. Some of its peasantry are probably “carbon-negative”.

    There have been campaigns against coal-fired power stations in China (102 GW were installed there last year: Kingsnorth is planned to be 1.6 GW).

    Like

  13. Good piece, Liam.

    However, I urge you to reconsider the characterization of the Morales government as simply “anti-imperialist.” As my NSG comrade Jeff Webber has analyzed in depth, the MAS government has shied away from confronting imperialism. Its so-called “nationalization” of hydrocarbons is a key example of this. Charging higher royalties is no doubt to be supported, but hardly what the mass movement fought for. I’ll paste two relevant sections of his article from AGAINST THE CURRENT 129 (July-Aug 2007) below.

    I don’t know enough about Ecuador to comment with confidence, and I’ll refrain from getting into the “Cuba Question.”

    SL

    from http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/577

    “But the more acceptable tax arrangement does not mean nationalization, and in this respect even the reformist measures of the Morales government fall well short of those enacted in the years immediately following the 1952 revolution. The transnational petroleum companies remain in control of the industry; the state oil company, YPFB, continues to be underfinanced and therefore incapable of exploration or production; and Bolivia continues to be trapped in the export of a primary commodity with no value-added, the price of which is currently high but will inevitably drop at some indeterminate future time…

    The above mentioned report solicited by the Council on Foreign Relations provides some further clues into the U.S. state’s perception of the Morales administration. The general recommendation of the report is to adopt a policy similar to that taken by the United States with respect to the MNR revolutionary government in the 1950s. The MNR was seen as potentially dangerous, but ultimately controllable through engagement, and perhaps even an effective means through which to co-opt and control the real danger of radical social movements and workers’ challenges from below. Maintaining stability seems to be the reigning objective at the moment.

    Eduardo Gamarra, the author of the report, writes, “As long as crisis persists, the United States will find it difficult to make progress on its traditional policy agenda. Indeed, should any of these tensions reach a boiling point, sparking widespread social unrest or violence, U.S. commercial, energy, security, and political interests in Bolivia and in the Andean rim subregion may be threatened.”(15)

    Besides, if one looks beyond Morales’ rhetoric, Gamarra reassuringly contends there is less to worry about than one might think:

    “These events suggest that Morales, despite the persona he has tried to cultivate, is in many ways a traditional Bolivian political actor who doles out patronage to major supporters while simultaneously condemning those who came before him for doing the same.(16) … In fact, a World Bank official interviewed for this project claimed that his organization’s relations with the Morales government are far better than with any recent previous government, despite Morales’ repeated anti-World Bank rhetoric.”(17)

    Perhaps most astonishing, given that Morales rose to political prominence through his leadership in the anti-imperialist coca-growers’ unions of the Chapare, Gamarra reports that the U.S. War on Drugs is relatively secure:

    “Remarkably, the Morales administration has permitted U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials to continue exercising significant control over interdiction efforts in Bolivia under its new policies, and U.S. diplomats have forged a successful, if somewhat tenuous, working relationship with their Bolivian counterparts. In September 2006, the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement announced that the United States has established ‘benchmarks’ that Bolivia had to meet over the next six months in order to continue to receive U.S. counternarcotics assistance. By meeting its 2006 goal of eradicating 5,000 hectares of coca fields, one benchmark was met. Furthermore, U.S. authorities agreed that there has been a significant increase in interdiction efforts since Morales came to power.”(18)

    Gamarra ultimately recommends that Washington continue its “democracy promotion” tactics, revive military assistance, and court the regional powers of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil to pressure Bolivia to maintain stability in the mutual interests of imperialism and sub-imperialism.(19) Meanwhile, “… the Morales government must quickly find a formula to co-opt dissent, much of which now revolves around organized labour groups historically supportive of the MAS.”(20)”

    Like

  14. “Capitalism’s need to make profits and produce destructive, wasteful useful things is not something that we will be able to modify with reforms.”
    This sentence needs tightening up.

    “This new magazine has set itself the ambition of becoming the principal English language ecosocialist publication.”
    Cheap digg – how about PRINCIPLED? Also http://www.socialistvoice.ca/ has good coverage on environmental issues.

    “In Britain the campaign against the Third Runway at Heathrow is a key episode in the fight to stop New Labour and the big corporations vastly expanding air traffic.”
    Don’t forget the Standstead expansion.

    “Those who take the environment seriously and those who don’t – but very soon there will only be one type. We want to make the same thing happen with socialists and ecologists.”
    Strictly speaking an ecologist is a scientist. Keep the same terms throughout the article, i.e. environmentalist.

    Like

  15. The rise in food and fuel prices is not a consequence of the US recession, but of the massive growth of the developing world, in particular China and the slump in the US dollar. As commodities are priced in dollars, as the dollar falls the price goes up, pretty obvious really.
    It by no means follows that just because there’s a US recession (if indeed there is one), that the world will follow it down.
    Although the slow down is being far more effective in cutting US emissions than any treaty, fuel consumption fell 2.7% over the course of the last year.
    And obviously per capita emissions in China are far lower than the US but then there population is far larger isn’t it?
    Your point that US emissions dwarf those of China is simply wrong. End of story.

    Like

  16. Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this strand. It’s pleasing when people start to engage with the ideas.

    Tomorrow or Sunday I’ll rework the text to take account of some of the points made.

    Like

  17. My point is correct, the US produces more pollution per person than any other country in the world. This means that US industrial production of pollution is on a much greater scale than in China. It follows that unless the West reduces it production of carbon emissions (which it has not) then lecturing China is hypocritical and very probably futile considering the West dependence on exploiting cheap labour in China.

    We live in a global economy. Pollution is a global issue. While the US and the rest of the West exploit cheap labour in China to fuel (literally) thier consumption we will continue to face rising pollution.
    China’s emissions are part of a problem caused by the expansion of Western capitalism.

    With regard to the rising cost of living this has been perpetuated by the West’s use of alternate forms of fuel. It’s the greed of capitalists in the West who are eager to exploit any method to increase consumption that is causing them to turn to alterntive forms of fuel that are even more polluting than fossil fuels.

    Unless capitalism can sustain levels of consumption the whole house of cards that the global economy is built upon will come crashing down. The cracks are already showing. In the US the beginings of recession have been acknowledged by the financial market and because the US is the worlds largest debtor that will definitely affect the rest of the world. The mortgage crisis in the US is the tip of the iceberg. Global finacial markets in late capitalism are a virtually incomprehensible system of finacial speculation. The UK is entwined in this web and we are already suffering the consequences of this speculative system as the US goes into recession.

    Like

  18. Ray your point that per capita US emissions are higher than China is correct. Your point that US emissions dwarf China’s is not correct.
    This has nothing to do with US industrial production, but is simply a mathematical question.
    US emissions are slightly smaller than China’s, but divided by 300 million people.
    China’s emissions are divided by 1.3bn people.
    Obviously therefore, Chinese per capita emissions are smaller than the US.
    For them to be the same Chinese output would have to quadruple, while US output didn’t change at all.
    And your point about lecturing China completely misses the point. China is a capitalist country with its own capitalist interests. It will not follow the “example” of the west, no matter how nicely the west explain their example.
    The Chinese capitalists will need to be overthrown just like their US counter parts.
    Oh and btw for all your certainty of global recession and collapse – your chief guru Harman hedges his bets and doesn’t predict anything of the kind – at least not in public!

    Like

  19. Incidentally the US’s carbon emissions per person are not the highest in the world. I’ve sourced this from wikipedia as it was the easiest to find – but you’ll find this info in plenty of places.

    link

    On this list we have the US at position number ten per person with Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emisirates and Luxemburg at the top. Of course all these countries have small populations comparitively.

    Your point stands, of course, that the US is a major contributor to greenhouse gasses and holds back world efforts to begin to deal with the problem – China on the other hand is home to 1 in 4 of the world’s population and so has a large carbon footprint even though the individuals average less than a third of that of the UK.

    Like

  20. Yes I agree that China is state capitalist and it’s ruling class are just as pernicious as those in the West but our emphasis in this struggle needs to be placed on our own ruling class.

    I stand corrected about the per capita emissions but I don’t think this negates the point I’m making. The US is at 10 and China is at 91 in the chart. The reason the US has such a high per capita rate of emissions is due to the level of consumption generated by its economy. China’s economy has been driven by the West’s desire to consume. It would not have achieved such rapid expansion without the the demands of Western capitalism. The per capita emissions are evidence of this. The consumer boom is not driven by the demands of the Chinese population but by the demands of the West.

    This may change but our campaigning has to focus on our own ruling class and their failure to do anything to halt the rise of carbon emissions in our own economies.

    Global recession is not guarenteed but it seems very likely that unless the US can get out of the mess it’s in then recession will take hold. We have experienced the effects of the faltering US economy already. Chinese reserves are in US dollars not in gold so as the value of the dollar falls so the Chinese reserve shrinks. This will slow and possibly halt growth as the Chinese economy is unable to fund development.

    Capitalism has entered a phase where trading in debt has grown enormously. When this form of trade falters, if for example the US defaults on its debt, then the house of cards may collapse. I think capitalism has far less room for manouver because the level of lending and debt is so high and the complex system of financial speculation is very vulnerable to collapse.

    Like

  21. China’s economy has partly been driven by the West’s desire to consume, but not mostly. The major drive behind the Chinese economy has been the domestic development of Chinese capitalism. Only around 1-2% of Chinese GDP growth comes from exports, and only a proportion of that from US exports. The EU is in fact the largest destination for Chinese exports and the rest of Asia is the fastest growing sector. See this article for some of the knock on effects
    http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10795714

    In fact 9% of Chinese emissions come from concrete production. China produces over half the world’s concrete which is part of the $1.5 trillion investment in fixed capital it undertakes. In comparison foreign direct investment is around $60 billion, which gives a good illustration of the importance, but not overwhelming importance of exports.
    Most Chinese reserves are in dollars, but China is not about to liquidate its assets and so bring down the US economy. But it is diversifying away from the US, more importantly they give it a large reserve to maintain domestic production even if foreign export markets do decline.
    What will determine the depth or otherwise of a recession is how much further the housing market collapses in the US and therefore the scale of losses to US financial institutions.
    But even if that gets much deeper it seems unlikely it will drag the rest of the world down with it.

    Like

  22. I still think we need to be wary of “per capita emissions”. The ratios of carbon emissions between different classes will generally be even greater than the ratios of incomes. China is being developed, not in the interests of its masses, but in those of its ruling class (viz air pollution levels, virtual slave labour etc).

    You can use statistics in lots of different ways. You can argue that the imperialist countries bear most of the responsibility for climate change, due to their historic emissions, or you could argue that current increases are mainly due to the “developing countries – depending on what poltical agenda you want to pursue. Both arguments locate the emissions in nations and draw (different) conclusions about “nations’ responsibilities and obligations”. The climate debate has very much been dominated by the process of international negotiations. This leads to a focus on nations rather than classes.

    Like

  23. I forgot to say: the climate camp IS at Kingsnorth this year:

    http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

    Like

  24. Climate change is a class issue and I think that’s why we need to focus on challenging our own ruling class.

    Through international solidarity we hope to support and influence our comrades in China to challenge their own ruling class. But it’s a diversion to focus on the developing countries as the problem. It plays into the hands of the ruling class in the West who do nothing to alter their own ever increasing consumption but try to divert attention away from themselves by shifting the focus on developing countries.

    It’s difficult to differentiate between how much of China’s growth is for national development and how much is used to build the infrstructure that allows China to export. As a capitalist state it is part of an international sytem and its growth relies at the moment on consumer markets abroad rather than an internal consumer market. This may change but it will inevitably result in Western multinationals moving into China unless the Chinese ruling class protects its market and that is becoming more difficult as it develops as part of international capitalism.

    I recall the film Blade Runner where Ridley Scott conceived of a future where Japanese multi-nationals had taken over the world turning Los Angeles into a Japanese billboard. This didn’t come about because the US and to a lesser extent European multinationals have enormous control of the market. While I don’t dismiss the need for China’s workers to challenge the emissions of it’s own ruling class I believe the Wests fear of Chinese capitalism spreading throughout the world is fueling the paranoia of the ruling class in the West.

    Like

  25. Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. The growth of China’s economy is not primarily the result of export markets. This is explained well in this March 08 report by Morgan Stanley, they consider the impact of a collapse in Chinese exports on GDP growth;

    “During the Asian financial crisis, China’s export growth plunged from a peak of 30%YoY in May 1997 to -11%YoY in November 1998. After the Internet bubble burst, China’s export growth dropped from a peak of nearly 40%YoY in March 2000 to barely zero growth in October 2001.”

    If your argument was correct this should have resulted in a sharp slow down in the Chinese economy, but what in fact happened;

    “Despite the sharp decline in export growth in these two
    downturns, the impact on China’s GDP growth was much less significant, with the respective GDP growth rates declining by about 1.5 percentage points and 0.1 percentage point from their pre-recession levels. A key reason is that countercyclical government-led capex (capital expenditure) was able to largely offset the weaker exports such that overall economic growth remained robust.”

    So it is reasonable to expect that this time, given that as you point out China has foreign exchange reserves of around $1.5 trillion, the government will step in again to offset any decline in growth due to a slowing in exports.
    Btw around 50% of exports are from western multi-nationals.
    I don’t think its a diversion to say the developing countries are a problem – its a diversion to say that the developing countries are the solution, i.e. that in order to save the world we need to stop their growth.
    The point is however, that only a global plan of production can allow them to grow while balancing their need to consume more with the West’s need to consume less.
    I was at a meeting of the campaign for climate change the other week with Jonathan Neale, where he explained that the way to beat climate change was to have a broad alliance including the church, liberals and Tories.
    It didn’t seem to occur to him that this was incompatible with actually doing anything effective.

    Like

  26. Does a group of ecosocialists, ecosocialise?

    Like

  27. The problem with the word ecosocialist is that it has no resonance outside of a tight group of academics. In militant terms I think it has still failed to gain any real traction, either as a series of ideas and concepts or in terms of an activist programme.

    The term Green Left is maybe better understood but at the moment is rather exclusive to an eclectic mix of leftish and anarchic activists, of various quality from superb to a bit nutty, in the various Green Parties.

    For Socialist Resistance to act as a central hub you have really got a job on your hands, firstly to collect together the various strands of thought and wield them into something semi-coherent, and secondly to act as a bridge between what can be rather esoteric academic discourse and a programme for change that directly addresses the long term sustainability of revolutionary change.

    For me the link between sustainability in an economy and socialism is clear, only a democratic socialist society would be able to deliver a sustainable quality of life for all.

    We are already seeing the signs of what capitalism answer to the twin problems of peak oil and climate change is- biofuels, GM agribusiness, even harsher immigration policies, military seizure of vital fossil fuels, combined with an ideological barrage that places the blame on individual consumption patterns- and hence individual not collective action, and Johnny Foreigner- in this case the developing economies.

    Bill- the Morgan Stanley report was accurate for that period, however exports from China according to the latest from the Tyndale Centre now make up around 30% of their carbon emissions and growing- the fastest growing carbon emissions sector is not, as is often claimed, air travel/freighting, but shipping- shipping goods from Asia to market is the fastest growing subcategory.

    Indeed if the UK was to calculate its carbon emission not by what it produces but by what it consumes then even the ridiculously low Kyoto Targets would be wildly missed.

    In my opinion all of points to a new approach for the left.

    For example a strong argument to oppose outsourcing production to developing countries is that in the medium terms it is unsustainable- in pure market terms because as the price of energy rises then the economic ‘benefit’ drops dramatically and secondly from an environmental point of view as the carbon emissions are no longer sustainable.

    A powerful argument for the Left is to show how in the face of rising energy costs and climate change a forward thinking economy would actually be actively working to keep skill and jobs local.

    Building up local resilience, at the most appropriate level- whether that be local food in communities, a defused, decentralised energy network, public transport at a regional level, or sustainable pharmaceutical production at probably a European level. Rob Hopkins and the Transition Town movement have done some work on this but it desperately needs a strong Left wing influence, and a good dose of class analysis to take it out of Totnes and other rather wonderful but hardly representative rural market towns place it at the centre of the trade union movement.

    Anyway I wish you all the luck in the world, it is a superb project if a bit daunting.

    Like

  28. If you could give me a link to that report I’d be interested. The point that Morgan Stanley were making was however, that if there is a fall in exports, even a steep one, then the Chinese government will probably step in, the certainly have the resources, to ensure that there is no let up in growth rates. Indeed this when combined with the growth of other markets outside the US is exactly what is happening.

    Like

  29. I don’t think it’s up to socialists to think up ways to manage the capitalist system. We can argue for cleaner fuel and less pollution but the ruling class in the West pay lip service to these demands. What we can do is expose the hypocrisy of the capitalist system and argue for a socialist society.

    For socialists in the UK it is neglecting what we can influence if we focus on China rather than our own ruling class. China is not the problem, Western capitalism is the major cause of global warming and is perpetuating it with it’s demand for commodities. There is no end to the greed of Western capitalists and that is what we can challenge by organising against this. What we don’t want to do is believe in the illusion that the ruling class can solve this problem or has any intention of reducing accumulation.

    One point to make about state spending on exports is the cost of plant and machinery, wages, rent, tax and all the other costs that contribute to servicing the export industry. If this is factored in to the amount of capital used by China to facilitate the export industry then we are talking about much higher figures for carbon emissions than for just exports alone. The West is equally responsible for the development of China’s infrastructure that supports the export trade. Without Western demand China could not have developed at the rate it has.

    Concerning the recession has anyone read the Times today? Gold hits a record high, fuel prices escalate, more mortgage misery in US and another banking crisis. Are we teetering on the edge or already falling into recession?

    Like

  30. “The problem with the word ecosocialist is that it has no resonance outside of a tight group of academics.” YES! It’s a term designed to distance the bearer from ordinary people and their struggles.

    “I don’t think it’s up to socialists to think up ways to manage the capitalist system.” But we do this all the time. Everytime we call for something to be nationalised, or wages to be improved or for this or that law to be introduced – even when we oppose or support a war that’s what we are doing.

    Claims that we need to change the system rather than make demands leave me a bit cold frankly – because unless we’ve learned what we’re fighting for through a process of struggle now – when we get the truly democratic society we want we will not be equiped to know what we’re going to do with it.

    Like

  31. Pete- we’ve had a mixed experience with “ecosocialism”. Lots of people have bought our book on the subject and we don’t know who they are.

    Plan A, before Respect got interesting again, was to relaunch the paper as “Ecosocialist Resistance”. This was voted down at a national meeting.

    It’s not the prettiest word in the language but at the moment it’s the only one that conveys the idea of combining revolutionary socialism and an environmental understanding.

    Like

  32. It helps if you imagine “ecosocialism as being a translation from German. It is an ugly word, but a nnecessary concept.

    Jim Jepps 100% on the money with his comment here:

    “Everytime we call for something to be nationalised, or wages to be improved or for this or that law to be introduced – even when we oppose or support a war that’s what we are doing.

    Claims that we need to change the system rather than make demands leave me a bit cold frankly – because unless we’ve learned what we’re fighting for through a process of struggle now – when we get the truly democratic society we want we will not be equiped to know what we’re going to do with it.”

    Like

  33. Making demands for less pollution from our own ruling class is not managing capitalism it’s fighting against the interests of our own ruling class who wish to increase profits whatever the cost to our environment.

    The arguement that socialists must attempt to stop developing countries from developing is managing capitalism for our own ruling class who are in competition with those countries and falsely blame them for global warming.

    There is no solution to this crisis because capitalism is unplanned and chaotic. While I believe we must fight for ecological improvements the reality is that capitalism as a system is inherently unecological and no amount of tinkering will change the negative effect of the pursuit of profit on the environment.

    Emissions in the West continue to rise despite platitudes from our leaders. The struggle for oil has resulted in a brutal war in the Middle East. Western governments are promoting bio-fuels and nuclear power which are less carbon friendly than fossil fuels rather than invest in more carbon friendly forms of generating power.

    It’s a pessimistic outlook but one that I think is the closest to reality. The most important thing socialists can do is to argue that to affect global warming and work in harmony with our environment we need more than just tinkering with the capitalist system. We need a complete change of system. Without us doing that we get caught up in looking for ways to managing the system rather than change it.

    Like

  34. Bill,
    Here’s an article by Green Chris GoodallI published on Naturalchoices.co.uk
    http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/China-is-keeping-the-UK-within-the?id_mot=10

    and here is the precise of the Tyndall Centre report
    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/programme2/task_2.1.html

    and here is an article on shipping that I knocked together
    http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Shipping-produces-1-12-billion?id_mot=10

    Liam- something you could try and do, and here I put my online marketing head one, is to try and creat a forum discussion around the book.

    1. Get the URL ecosocialismforum.com – it is available I just checked. As is the URL ecosocialismorbarbarism.com

    2. Get a nice green hoster like ecologicalhosting.com to provide solar powered hosting.

    3. Use some freeware forum software like http://www.phpbb.com/ and build up a good forum interface

    4. Creat a newsletter for all that post- and capture thier e-mail addresses

    5. Build an amazon astore with a library of all the best books on ecosocialism and related texts- this can plug on all available sites- the income may pay for hosting costs.

    If you manage it well, and market it through all available blogs/socialist resistance/ the new magazine etc get people like Ian from Climate and Capitalism involved and writing for it, Derek Wall, some good Latin American and world input, as well as say a useful activist info base, and a comprehensive directory of links- you can have a great online discussion and resource that both adds to the magazine and attracts in a wider range of people- who’s e-mail addresses you then have for mailings- using of course a double opt in with full privavcy agreement.

    That all may sound a little too marketing orientated but it’s about time the Left used the web to it full extent.

    If you need a hand I start a job in the UK on Monday so will be in and out of London probably once a week

    Pete

    Like

  35. Pete – I’ll raise the marketing ideas with comrades. Derek Wall, Ian Angus of Climate and Capitalism and Joel Kovel are all on the new editorial advisory board.

    Like

  36. Phil W re Kingsnorth (coal-fired)
    “I think that it would probably be a mistake to demand that the power station be combined with carbon captutre and storage as a condition of its being built ….Opposing CCS fits in with the position that continuous growth of production is not a requirement of socialism….We should think of alternatives to Kingsnorth, though, and not just oppose its construction. So a campaign against it should include clear proposals for energy saving, or renewables, or both.”

    CCS is so far down the line as a practical technology that I don’t think it’s realistic to make it a precondition for supporting any particular project right now.

    Certainly there should be strict emission standards applied to all new power generation plant and use of renewables maximised within an overall energy policy.
    But complete opposition to any new coal-fired plant ignores some important issues:-

    1) Due to the rise gas prices and certain jingoistic fears of over-reliance on Russian and North African supplies, coal is undergoing a revival.

    2) The privatised UK coal mining sector is not in a position to revive the industry to meet the demand. Consequently 50 million tonnes are imported annually to produce 30% of grid electricity.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/15/2

    3) There’s is no currently technologically realistic source of baseload power, other than nuclear, capable of filling this gap. So opposing any new coal fired power stations means either that electricity production will have to *fall*, or supporting nuclear power.

    4) The NUM has constantly lobbied for expanding domestic production and using more efficient power generation facilities.

    http://www.num.org.uk/?p=news&c=num&id=900

    I think we should support them.

    The focus should be on inessential projects like Heathrow expansion, the car manufacturers and oil companies and the need for big government projects to speed up the development of renewable energy.

    Like

  37. Prianikoff says:
    “The focus should be on inessential projects like Heathrow expansion, the car manufacturers and oil companies and the need for big government projects to speed up the development of renewable energy.”

    I included in my list of alternatives to Kingsnorth energy saving, which in my opinion is the most effective alternative energy strategy. I expect that energy use in an industrialised country could be cut by 75% through a combination of more efficient use of energy (insulation etc.) and getting rid of socially useless industries and associated infrastrucure and activities (including transport, commuting etc). The latter, I know is a long way off, but probably constitutes over 30% of even a non-manufacturing economy like ours. (Examples, in our high street, almost every shop has its doors open, come rain or shine, with a heater over the door. It also has FIVE mobile phone shops in a length of about 30 metres, and loads of clothes shops, all selling basically the same stuff).

    On Kingsnorth vs. renewables: we are nowhere near the suituation where renewables (wind) would challenge the baseload. There are ways of storing wind energy (compressed air in aquifers, various REDOX reactions in a vanadium sulfate solution) which may mean it is even more practical BUT I cannot stress enough that, in my opinion, the key to all renewable energy systems is to reduce demand, otherwise you are just building another unnecessarily huge energy infrastructure.

    On Kingsnorth vs. Heathrow etc. I can’t see the logic in this argument, unless it is out of some romantic attachment to the NUM. In terms of the TU movement, the Heathrow workers are now potentially much more numerous, powerful, ethnically and sexually diverse than the miners, so an argument on those kinds of grounds would favour Heathrow expansion. I haven’t looked up the data, but I suspect that Kingsnorth’s planned extra emissions are greater than Heathrow’s as well (until they close their old power stations).

    The political aspect to this is the need for a victory against the government’s continuing totally blase (can someone tell me how to do accents etc.?) attitude to CO2-intensive developments. In that sense, it is fair enough to campaign against H’row expansion, Kingsnorth, M1 widening, new Tesco superstores etc. etc. The government (and local authorities) need to be forced into the position where they can’t sanction developments unless they are carbon neutral, or carbon negative.

    Like

  38. Ray said:
    “There is no solution to this crisis because capitalism is unplanned and chaotic. While I believe we must fight for ecological improvements the reality is that capitalism as a system is inherently unecological and no amount of tinkering will change the negative effect of the pursuit of profit on the environment.

    “Emissions in the West continue to rise despite platitudes from our leaders.”

    To deal with the latter point first: emissions from quite a few countries have fallen since the baseline date, 1990. This includes the UK (mainly due to the dash to gas and methane capture from landfills). There is probably also even a fall in emissions if you include air traffic and shipping.

    We cannot escape the fact that “the west” will be making a lot of noise about the emissions from the “developing” countries. Of course, we would argue about the need for “the West” to get its own house in order – including , in my opinion, draconian measure against the conspicuous consumption of the imperialist ruling class. And we should oppose the various mehcanisms by which the “west” offloads its emissions onto the “global south”.

    But that does not deal with the FACTS of what is occurring in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa etc. who will contribute the lion’s share of the growth in emissions (+ deforestation) over the next thirty years, unless something extraordinary happens. Do we just think these countries should continue the course of capitalist development pursued by the imperialist countries – based on “growth” of GDP as the indicator of “well being”, fossil fuels, arms, rape of the environment, poisoning of the workers and peasants, and continued growth of a rapacious ruling class? Or do we think there is actually a low-energy, zero-carbon alternative path that is easier for them to follow, because large sectors of their economies are not yet committed to fossil fuels?

    On the issue of ecological improvements vs. the socialist future: we need to have a concrete, ecological programme that points to the socialist future. We can’t just support current “tinkering” and make propaganda about socialism. (This is one reason why I’m a Trotskyist, incidentally and not a “minimum-maximalist”). Here’s what Hidayat Greenfield (an Indonesian trade union leader) says about that approach:

    “The ‘nothing new’ approach treats ecological destruction as integral to capitalism – but saying ‘it’s capitalism; it’s the system’ not only fails to mobilise people, but may in fact discourage them – leaving them overwhelmed, confronting the entire system: everything. When we try to fight everything, we end up fighting nothing. There also seems a smugness, an arrogance about an answer that says: it’s capitalism, stupid! The response, in terms of organised class struggle – is left unexplored, or lost in slogans.” (Socialist Register, 2007).

    Like

  39. There’s no disagreement on energy-saving measures, or renewables.
    But the arguments for expanding domestic coal production aren’t based “Romanticism” for the industrial power of the NUM.

    Expanding Heathrow isn’t essential and not expanding it won’t mean job losses.

    Air-travel could easily be reduced. For European destinations, it could be entirely replaced by rail.
    City buses could be near carbon neutral if trams, trolleybuses and fuel cell buses replaced diesels and the power supply came from renewable sources.

    Grid electricity is essential though.
    The 70% of electricity that comes from coal and natural gas, can’t be entirely replaced by energy saving measures, cheaper solar panels or local generation.

    It comes down to how that baseload element will be supplied at whatever level it pans out.
    Some environmentalists and socialists argue that it must be supplied by a new generation of nuclear power plants.

    I’m not prepared to support that, especially if its in the hands of private energy companies.
    Mainly because I think the risk of just one major nuclear accident in Britain would be disastrous.
    I remain unconvinced by claims that these problems have been overcome, or that the waste problem is trivial.

    So that means some basic level of coal production must be included in the energy balance for the forseeable future, with C02 emissions reduced to a minimum by whatever processes are best.
    The point is that domestic coal production was run down to an artificially low level out of political hostility to the miners.

    Britain doesn’t just import coal. It’s the world’s 4th largest importer!
    Per head of population, it produces only 0.3 mt from around 20 Mt total annual production.
    That compares with China’s 2.06 Mt per head from 2400 Mt and the USA’s 3 from 990 Mt.
    Clearly, these are much bigger problems for the world than the paltry level of British coal production.

    There are solid arguments for renationalising the UK coal industry, expanding production and involving the NUM in determining safety standards and emission levels.

    They have shown over the years that these are issues of vital concern to them.

    It could help limit global C02 emissions.

    If environmentalists approached them for a joint policy it would also help heal the rift that presently divides them from the unions in the energy producing sector.
    Think about it.

    Like

  40. erratum to above:

    Figures quoted on coal production per head should be in tons not Mt.
    Absolute production levels are in Mt. (millions of tons)

    Like

  41. I’m not sure where you got your information that UK co2 emission are falling. They are, in fact, soaring. New Labour have consistantly missed its targets.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/anger-as-uks-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reach-10year-high-442496.html

    Nuclear fuel and bio fuels are more carbon intensive and potentially much more destructive to the environment than fossil fuels so socialists should be arguing against these on principle. We need to argue for wind, wave and other carbon neutral forms of power. I would also agree that re-opening UK coal mines would be far less damaging to the environment than importing coal from abroad. Thatcher closed the mines as part of her political attack on the working class and not because they were unproductive.

    While we should campaign against the new run way at Heathrow and other capitalist projects that result in ecological damage we should not delude ourselves or the people with whom we discuss ecological issues that capitalism has the answer.

    Despite all the years of campaigning has this slowed down the destruction of the environment? Is the Amazon rain forest facing less deforestation, are the famines of Africa subsiding, has capitalism stopped growing thus damaging the environment on an ever increasing scale? Not at all! As well as supporting the campaigns that try to reduce the impact capitalism has on our environment, we need to expose the ruling class as hypocrites who have no intention of saving the environment and are only interested in profit.

    Like

  42. Forgot to mention solar power as another potential power source.

    Like

  43. If anyone is interested in science fiction then Ray Hammond’s (no relation), “Extinction”, is a fun, trashy read. A despicable ruling class causing ecodisaster on an unprecedented scale with the oppressed saving the day.

    Like

  44. Zero Carbon Britain- from the Centre of Alternative Technologies actually has a highly developed startegy for a defused, decentralised energy network based on exisiting technologies see http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

    Ray, “While we should campaign against the new run way at Heathrow and other capitalist projects that result in ecological damage we should not delude ourselves or the people with whom we discuss ecological issues that capitalism has the answer.”

    While I couldn’t agree more that a system based on capitalism cannot find a solution to the global sustainable future the problem is that it can find a solution to small parts of it and to the devil with everyone else. That is the problem with so much of the present mainstream debate around the environment, it centres around how a ‘Western Lifestyle’- read ruling and middle Class Europe and American production and consumption can be maintained- based on biofuel, energy savings, and motorways packed with hybrid Lexuses.

    It is also why so much of the debate is about green taxes, mainly regressive taxation regimes, that allow those with weath to basically pay for the right to pollute. A carbon rationing system is the only egalitarian system- but then some bright entrepeneur will set up a carbon credit e-bay and once again those with wealth will be able to buy their way to their exisiting consumption habits.

    The whole issue of polluter pays is highly suspect but that is another debate-and France and Wales are on the telly

    Like

  45. Ray: your link to the Independent gives 2006 UK emissions as 560.6 MT CO2. The figures I have go up to 2002 and are for all GHGs, in MTCO2eq. In 1990, they were 808MT and 2005 they were 733MT, having risen from a low point of 721MT in 2002. This is anyhow a secondary issue, as I entirely agree that “emissions continue to rise” (now) as you said earlier – at least in the UK. But there was a significant initial fall from 1990, due to the dash to gas and to the subsidies for methane tapping from landfill sites.

    I fail to understand Prianikoff’s arguments about Heathrow: it wasn’t as if I was arguing it should be expanded! I entirely agree with all the points you make for a CONTRACTION of air travel: we in the ISG call for a ban on internal flights, for example. But I’m not sure about this distinction that says that electricity is “essential” where air travel isn’t. Surely it depends what each is used for?

    I didn’t argue that “grid electricity” is inessential, any more than you argued that all air travel is “inessential”. What I do argue, and you don’t address in your argument for Kingsnorth , aside from acknowledging it as an issue, is the large savings in energy that can be made by increasing efficiency and eliminating wasteful use of energy. That would make Kingsnorth and all coal-fired and all nuclear plants unnecessary (57% of total UK electricity production).

    But the main arguments are political – not trying to do the ruling class’s energy planning for it. The importance of a symbolic victory in strengthening the movement against climate change should not be underestimated. Did you oppose the 2006 climate camp at Drax?

    Ray: On CO2 emissions from nuclear power stations. I think that saying nuclear is more carbon-intensive than fossil fuels is incorrect. It wouldn’t make any sense at all to build a nuclear power station, as the running costs would be astronomical, as well as the construction and clean-up costs. Nuclear’s “USP” is low running costs.

    The claim about CO2 emissions appears to have been made popular by Helen Caldicott in her book “Nuclear Power is Not the Answer”. (It isn’t, but that is another story). Some of her arguments were then taken up by The Ecologist, amongst others. These arguments were refuted by George Monbiot in 2006 (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11/thanks-but-we-still-dont-need-it/) and I used his article, and other information, in Socialist Resistance last year : http://www.socialistresistance.net/SR%20Editions/SR48/SR48_23.htm

    I’m not convinced about opposing biofuels “on principle”. Some biofuels could be carbon-negative and be used to improve the soil as well (http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm). I have written about possible positive uses for Jatropha in the first issue of RR’s newspaper, which I’m sure you have. (Update: the UK-based Jatropha cultivator and importer is in the process of being squeezed out by subsidised ethanol, imported from the US). Of course, most biofuels, under the capitalist market, are immensely ecologically destructive and many are more carbon-intensive than fossil fuels – particularly if they replace forest and/or peat bog.

    Like

  46. This has been an interesting debate so far. I briefly read New Scientist in the library today and notice a little table showing the US governemnts spending on R&D into alternative fuels/power. It’s investment has decreased significantly and is another example of how the largest CO2 producer in the West is determined to keep fossil fuels as the main form of energy in the future.

    Redbedhead posted the following on SUN (I think it’s a good analysis of the effect the financial crisis may have on China’s economy):

    “…China has a big chunk of US debt – which is the form in which China holds US dollars. But that just means China is potentially vulnerable twice over because not only is it’s primary market going into a recession, but also the value of the dollars it holds are shrinking and there is a risk that a lot of the US debt it holds is poisoned by the sub-prime crisis.
    This is not the picture of an ever-upward global economy.”

    Like

Leave a reply to bill j Cancel reply

Trending