I assume that Climate Warming is indeed THE major threat facing humanity (the human species) as a whole. I presume Hans, Gene, et al agree on this.
Does it then follow that global warming is the key _issue_ around which leftists should attempt to build mass movements?
My answer is that to do so would be (and has been) counter-productive.
In my earlier post I wrote: "I assume that achieving actual democratic rule _probably_ would lead to the energy policies favored by Gene and others." More importantly yet, nearly without exception, persons and organizations attempting to build resistance to capitalism _also_ support the struggle against global warming. Hence support of _any_ of the strggles in which such groups are involved (e.g., fight for fifteen) is _automatically_ a fight against climate warming. BUT most though not all groups featuring the fight against global warming miserably fail to engage in the other issues now confronting working masses.
Those who comprehend the terrible threat of global warming must therefor give primary consideration in their political activity NOT to global warming but to low wages, imperialism, police brutality, etc. They must work to build mass resistance to capitalism Only such movements will be effective in the struggle against global warming.
Those who recognize the threat of global warming should be the most active in the black lives matter movement and the movements against u.s. imperialism.
And that unemployed steel worker Adolph Reed invoked in support of his rabid opportunism - - -that worker, if he knows his own interests will be one of the most vigorous fighters for reparations.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: pen-l at mail.csuchico.edu [mailto:pen-l at mail.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of ehrbar at marx.economics.utah.edu Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:21 AM To: Eugene Coyle; cbcox at ilstu.edu Cc: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; pen-l at mail.csuchico.edu; energy at lists.csbs.utah.edu Subject: [lbo-talk] [pen-l] New technologies won't be enough to resolve climate crisis
In response to Michael Klare's blog posting
http://www.juancole.com/2016/07/addicted-fatal-costlier.html
Carrol is asking
> Does anyone believe such "political action" [namely: breaking the
> power of the fossil fuel industry and introducing green energy on a
> far larger scale than contemplated by the Paris agreements] is even a
> remote possibility?
This is the wrong question. Uncertainties are so great that we cannot let ourselves be guided by the likelihood of success. Instead, we have to be guided by what is the right thing to do both on moral grounds or even just based on common sense.
It seems obvious to me that the following actions are necessary, as we witness human global society seemingly inexorably committing suicide by over-consumption. Most of the readers of the pen-l mailing list should clearly do two things (I am convinced here by Kevin Anderson, Niko Paech, John Schellnhuber and others):
(1) reduce our own carbon footprint (fly much less, instead of car use bicycle or mass transit as often as possible, eat much less meat, move into a smaller home closer to work or get a housemate, young people can make a big difference in their own lives by the choice of their jobs and how much children they have, in winter turn down your thermostat and use sweaters, don't shower so long, etc) and
(2) do everything we can to promote mitigation in whatever social position we are (by teaching, influencing the University you work at, voting, whoever has ties to organized labor can play an extremely important role, try to influence every social organization where you have a standing, etc.) Whenever you have a chance, tell the people you are talking to how important it is that the rich countries give enough money and technology to the emerging countries so that they can embark on a green development path.
One of the main differences between points (1) and (2) is that (1) has an immediate effect on carbon footprint, and (2) has a delayed effect. Nichael Klare does not emphasize point (1) enough. It is true, he writes
> Success in any global drive to avert climate catastrophe will involve
> tackling addictive behavior at its roots and promoting lasting changes
> in lifestyle.
But then he does not discuss what individuals in the rich countries can do to change their lifestyles to sustainable levels. Such discussions can be found for instance on the web site
and on many other places, also in Niko Paech's writings etc. Instead, Michael Klare discusses what colleges or cities could do to encourage these lifestyles, how traffic lanes could be reserved for electric cars, etc. Klare does not seem to realize that capitalist institutions are not doing what is necessary for human survival and that therefore individuals must step in. Since educational institutions, the press, and legislators are not doing their jobs, a substantial minority of individuals must demonstrate to the world as individuals (using the internet, i.e., bypassing the capitalist monopoly of the news media) that and how it is possible to have a happy and dignified life with a sustainable environmental footprint. The development of such a culture of sufficiency is a necessity. We cannot ask India and Africa to forego the benefits of a fast, cheap, and comfortable fossil-fueled development and go the more expensive and more frugal sustainable energy path -- as long as the US and Europe don't bother switching away from fossil fuels in their own countries.
Lots of people are already experimenting with lean lifestyles, but this must go viral, it must become part of the culture in those countries rich enough that a substantial minority can do it. It must become big enough that the fossil fuel dependent industries see a dent in their demand. This individual de-carbonization must be something that each of us does, at the same time at which we also fight for the necessary social and cultural changes. I write "must" here because this is what individuals can do, even while the institutions are continuing to pursue the profit interests of the capitalists. Individuals must do this while they fight against the capitalist interests.
Hans G Ehrbar
Eugene Coyle <e.coyle at me.com> writes:
> Yes, Carrol, I believe in a remote possibility. And it looks as if you do as well, since you are, thankfully, still organizing.
>
> Gene
>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> " This grim outcome is avoidable, as Klare notes, only if the latest technological and price breakthroughs are accompanied by political action which breaks the power of the fossil fuel industry and introduces green energy on a far larger scale than contemplated by the Paris agreements. . . ."
>>
>> Does anyone believe such " political action" is even a remote possibility?
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Progressive Economics" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pen-l+unsubscribe at mail.csuchico.edu. To post to this group, send email to pen-l at mail.csuchico.edu. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/group/pen-l/. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/86shv7jlhi.fsf%40acidification2.economics.utah.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/optout.