If we assume that global warming is happening then it is in everyone’s interest to deal with it – not just the left, the working class or any other sectional interest. We just need a technical fix. There is no reason for energy companies to oppose this. They could just lobby for big state handouts as compensation. Wouldn’t be the first time that the state has bailed out a sectional capitalist interest that is no longer able to make money, or which no longer makes things that people want. And there are already plenty of environmentalists demanding action without me joining in. So what specifically is the left’s role?
I’d suggest that it should be challenging the idea that we should start from the ‘self-evident’ need to deal with emissions, and start instead from a focus on defending working class living standards. Hence my challenge to explain how you can ensure that people’s needs – as defined by the people, not by you – can be met in the context of addressing global warming. If your answer is that we cannot do this, that we have to tighten our belts, then frankly I don’t see much role for the left at all. This would at least explain the voting intentions of some on the list, but it’s not an inspiring platform and it doesn’t give me a reason for engaging in left wing politics instead of watching TV.
The website that Doug linked is interesting, and I’ve just ordered Tom Athanasiou’s books from Amazon. I’m going to duck out of this debate until I’ve read them. But in the meantime, here are my reflections on the arguments put to me so far.
People are too willing to jump to conclusions about technical questions of which they know little. I have not denied that global warming is happening because of human activity. As it happens, I suspect that it is. But I do not have the knowledge to assert this, and my reading of the scientific debate suggests that many climatologists confess that they too are uncertain. I think that when you claim to know, you are making a political point not a scientific one. Anyone challenging the consensus is immediately branded an eccentric or an apologist (e.g. Jon, “the only "scientists" expressing doubt about global warming now are paid flacks of energy companies.” And John, “The disagreements in the field of climate research aren't whether it is true or not, only cranks hold it is not.”). Which is partly why scientists are reluctant to speak out against the consensus.
Jon is no doubt well aware that there used to be a scientific consensus
over race and eugenics, but shows surprise at the suggestion that scientists – scientists! – might be influenced by a social consensus over global warming.
John: “Another thing of interest is the automobile obsession.” Yes, but the obsession is all John’s. I deliberately avoided mentioning cars – air conditioning and computers were my examples. As I noted, more CO2 is emitted from electricity generation than from transport. But there seems to be a stronger moral prejudice against cars.
He also says, “Did I mention I have a really fast car with a big engine that I enjoy?” Yes. Several times. Did I mention I don’t even have a driver’s licence?
John continues: “For almost all of humankinds existence we did without them but now to do without them is austerity. Doing without refrigeration for foods and medicines is austerity. The loss of the internal combustion powered personal vehicle may be seen as a non-issue 150 years down the road if it happens. The inability to conceive of life being fulfilling without a car is weird.”
For most people cars are tools – routes to work and routes to the supermarket, but not routes to fulfillment. Perhaps some people do – and as you’re the one with the fast car, I’ll defer to you on this. I happen to agree with you that this would be weird. But what I think is weird is no basis for politics, and not very interesting for anyone else. It is telling that John doesn’t even defend refrigeration in its own terms, but only for food and medicine – i.e. basic survival. Having things now that we didn’t have before isn’t a sign that we don’t need them. It’s a sign that we’ve moved forward. And it means that people like John can choose to have fast cars if they want to.
John: “What I find interesting in both of the James' claims that climate change is probably not an issue is that they both believe that if it turns out they are wrong and it is an issue the same scientific processes they dismiss as unreliable as predictors of climate change are going to be called upon to save us with some sort of technical fix.
If we can't predict climate change how are we supposed to remedy it?”
This James is simply showing appropriate caution about the state of scientific knowledge. Just because science doesn’t have all the answers about global warming doesn’t mean that science is useless. If global warming is happening because of human action, then it is a technical problem requiring technical solutions. Climate is no longer experienced directly by humans. It is mediated by technology – including air conditioning and heating. Some people seem to experience science and technology as alien, but they are just human techniques which, whether you like it or not, enable us to cope better with the natural world. And if climate change is happening, they will continue to play a major part in dealing with its effects.
I have been accused of misrepresentation because nobody has adopted to slogan, ‘reverse the industrial revolution’. But the past few centuries have unleashed human creativity, and have seen an enormous and sustained improvement in living standards. If you try to force this genie back into the bottle, preventing the expansion of use values because it is not sustainable, then you are going to reverse the industrial revolution, whether you choose these words or not.
--James
James Greenstein