[lbo-talk] dire words from IPCC

[tfast]

Doug wrote:
>
> My position is that we've got to do something to mitigate what's
> likely to happen, and at the same time radically cut greenhouse gas
> emissions in the coming decades. I don't understand how that's
> thimble-like. I've actually done a fair amount of research (reading
> and interviews) on this topic, so I'm not just making stuff up. If
> you think that we can't do what's necessary without smashing
> capitalism, then you're living in a fantasy land, because we don't
> have that much time.
>

Yah and if you think that solving the problem will not entail a massive
collective (legislative) repression of capitalist forms of inefficiency and
waste you are also living in dream world.

The Conservatives are scared shitless by the environmental problem precisely
because it entails putting the collective regulation (subservience) of
capitalism back on the political agenda in a way that they cannot easily
dismiss.

Yah and if you think that solving the problem will not entail a massive
collective (legislative) repression of capitalist forms of inefficiency and
waste you are also living in dream world.

The Conservatives are scared shitless by the environmental problem precisely
because it entails putting the collective regulation (subservience) of
capitalism back on the political agenda in a way that they cannot easily
dismiss.

The magnitude of resources that are going to need to be mobilized and the
problems to which they are going to need to put are quite staggering and
require the kind of resource rationing that capitalist markets cannot easily
produce in an equitable manner.

So sure, no smashing of capitalism but a radical shift from the complexion
of capitalism today.  Can anyone say collectively planned markets?

Travis