My utopia – Creating a sustainable planet
 |
| 916 audio & video reports on flooding on the BBC website |
We are not here to discuss if the eco-crisis is happening. We know it is happening from the almost daily new evidence of dramatic changes and their consequences are published by the world’s press, academics and environmental activists.
What we want to do is discuss some solutions and in doing so explore the social and political implications of how these might work.
It is important to understand that technical solutions to the eco-crisis are already available or will be with further development available in a short period. The problem lies in that the essence of the society we live in - a capitalist system and its latest phase of globalization – are central to the problem.
It is the nature of capitalism to respond to all problems in its own specific way which is to focus on bottom line and commodity production. For example – even the simple act of buying food has been commodified to create further opportunities for profit generation. Shops are located to maximise numbers of shoppers for the retailers and not for our convenience. But you need to buy commodities before you even get to the shops – so a car and them petrol etc. - and when you get there you are faced with a cornucopia of tempting commodities none of which you wanted when you set out!
Capitalism is trapped in this endless production of endless commodities – and where it has tried to tackle climate change it has failed because it is unable to take actions that interrupt this cycle – as Blair made clear in his US speech last year that any action on climate change must be limited so that it does not interrupt or affect the workings of the global economy.
In the early 1990s the managing editor of The Economist, Francis Cairncross, was clear in her own mind about the effects of capitalist growth:
"Many people hope that economic growth can be environmentally benign. It never truly can"
Capitalism can only offer market solutions. One of the main results of Kyoto was the creation of carbon trading which won't resolve the climate crisis but has created a new commodity for profits – carbon emissions.
'Carbon Trading' schemes work by setting CO2 emission by allocating 'carbon credits' to companies, who can sell 'surplus' credits (if they produce less carbon than their allocation) to other companies who have exceeded theirs. But we can see how this is a con-trick, because companies in the UK Trading Scheme have deliberately over estimated the amount of CO2 they would produce and are now selling their surplus credits to hospitals, schools, universities and other public bodies (forced into the scheme) who have failed to meet their targets. This is example of the market state managing and creating opportunities for capitalism to commodify even its pollution.
 |
| NASA picture of the melting Greenland ice cap |
Now you could follow the approach of the mainstream green movement which aims to create tide of moral outrage and fear because they believe this will force corporations to change their ways and governments to be more regulatory.
But we can see this approach that has failed – for instance the World Trade Organisation has excluded right to make environmental decisions part of trade considerations so they can enforced introduction of GM food into countries where people clear don't want it!
Another example - following the completion of the International Rice Genome Sequence Project, the Swiss multi-national giant Syngenta filed global patents covering over 30,000 gene sequences of rice, and other major crops such as wheat, corn and rye to banana and soya. Transnational corporations are making big in roads into countries like India, after its government relaxed restricts on seed imports. The Indian government is now trying to bring in a Seeds Bill to take seed-germination control out of the hands of farmers and into the hands of these transnational seed corporations. Increasingly Third World nations are becoming economically dependent to globalised capital, as well as becoming increasingly vulnerable ecologically. Similar to the way early capitalist land owners enclosed the English commons (top create increased profits from agriculture), now transnational globalization is attempting to enclose the global commons of knowledge.
The other thing the mainstream Green movement says is that a personal reduction in consumption in the West is required through the way we live, but is this a possible proposition for capitalism whose survival as a system is based on the necessity for us all to go on consuming as fast as we can borrow the money to do it?
The issue of consumption is difficult. We know what the planet can absorb in carbon and this has to be reduced, but capitalist growth is feeding consumption. There is no way out of this we need to be able to satisfy peoples’ needs without selling commodities etc. The danger is that reduced consumption in key areas, in current social structures, could very rapidly move from being “an ethical choice” to an enforced reduction in living standards for the vast majority.
We need to understand that capitalism has an inherent tendency to crises - from overproduction, fictitious value, tendency of the rate of profit to fall as fixed capital increases as a proportion of costs. The result is that all efforts to resolve problems only serve to recreate them at a higher, more crisis-ridden, level.
The danger is that as the situation worsens, there will be more catastrophes, floods, and droughts, adaptive actions will have to be taken - but in the context of maintaining capitalist production at all costs. Real mitigation will be avoided.
It is predicted that the climate crisis will cost the global economy $20 trillion (£10.8 trillion) a year by the end of the century (according to Friends of the Earth report October 13 2006). On the same day Shell published a report stating that dealing with global warming is a £30bn potential market for British business over the next ten years.
| Based on findings detailed in his new book, Heat, George Monbiot claimed that for the UK a 90% cut in CO2 emissions by 2030 was the only way to prevent runaway global warming. |
But Peter Scales, the Chair of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, is clear in that despite these opportunities investment decisions will not be "aimed at saving the planet but maintaining the value of out investments". Is tackling climate change going to depend on decisions made by institutional investors on how profitable moving investments from high-carbon to low-carbon companies is perceived? Is giving up our dependency on fossil fuels going to hinge on profit based decisions made by global corporations?
What will be the focus of this “market opportunity”? The whole idea of looking at climate change as a business opportunity tells us everything we need to know about the direction it will take. The opportunities will be to commodify solutions, so they are only available to those who can pay – and in terms of climate change, that is worse than useless. It will lead to increasing climate chaos and social collapse. A Swiss Re report in 2004 recognised that the danger of accelerating climate change would make it “impossible to adapt our social economic system in time”.
It is time to end this blackmail by establishing a new, more democratic political framework, in which society could reorganise the economy along co-operative, not-for-profit, self management lines and take the necessary drastic action to slash CO2 emissions.
Social impacts of the climate crisis have begun here in Britain. Already, poor people, particularly pensioners, are not heating their houses because they cannot afford the price of gas and electricity. They generally live in the older, draughty houses without insulation that need lots of energy to heat them.
But a study, called the 40% House, showed how to upgrade existing houses to tackle this fuel poverty and reduce CO2 emissions from the domestic sector by 60% over the next 40 years. To Dom this would require a society with strong environmental concerns, willing to change its social priorities to meet the required targets. It is hardly surprising that New Labour has not taken up this challenge since it was published over a year ago.
As drought takes hold, prices of fresh food will rise as they did over this last summer, and the poor will not be able to afford to buy them. People are forced to buy cheap food at Tescos which is sourced from the other side of the world consuming vast quantities of carbon.
But Cuba has shown there is an alternative to the GM future promoted by globalised capital. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990's Cuba was forced to switch from a high input, fossil fuel-dependent farming to low input self-reliant farming as the supply of fertilizers, pesticides and animal imports into Cuba reduced by 80%. They had to develop new environmental technologies such as bio-pesticides and bio-fertilizers. It has worked but it has taken planning and commitment, but they have achieve it without the kind of infrastructure available within a country like the UK.
One can imagine when the market solutions to the climate crisis fail – as they will continue to do – harsh measures will have to be taken in a dictatorial fashion, putting the burden of the crisis on the poorest to protect the corporations and the rich.
For example, if livestock production is cut back to reduce CO2 emissions, the price of meat will rise so only the rich can afford it. Action on transport will be like the congestion charge or road tolls – could prevent the poor from driving whilst the rich can go on enjoying the benefits. And if demand for cars decreases as a result, those workers sacked from car factories will be offered no alternative employment – just as happened at Rover and is about to happen at Peugeot at Ryton. But we need to reduce car consumption/ production so we need to offer alternative employment options for those communities where cars have been built. It isn't as though you couldn't change what these factories produce. But it comes down to who's controlling decisions about what to do - investment bankers or the communities?
There is no doubt that as food and fuel prices rise people will take action to protect themselves and their families, and governments will use force to fight off their challenge and defend the corporations. “Ecological extremism” will be lumped together with other kinds of so-called extremism as a threat “to our values and our way of life”, and subject to the same repressive measures.
We have had a warning of how states will react to the climate crisis in Blair's suggestion to ‘streamline’ the planning process to avoid long planning enquiries into the building of new nuclear power stations. This will see the erosion of community rights, restricting opportunities to object and protest. Blair is not just doing this to do the bidding of New Labour’s business partners, it is part of the neo-liberal global power structure, tied to its desire for nuclear weapons. It is no coincidence that at the same time Blair and Brown are promoting new nuclear power stations they are calling for Trident to be replaced, at a cost of over £12billion and £280million a year to maintain.
We also saw this in New Orleans. The victims of the hurricane Katrina were treated as enemies of the state, rounded up at gunpoint, herded into sports stadiums with no food and water, then forced out of their city never to return. We seen no rush by the bush administration to rebuild the poor area of New Orleans.
Politics and the state need to be considered in looking for solutions to the climate crisis:
We reject the idea put forward by some green campaigners that humanity must go back to a previous age, more isolated and local economies.
How can we ever win support for action to save the environment if all we can offer people is a worse standard of living with fewer goods than they enjoy at present. This is a real abdication and a failure of confidence in the potential of human beings to go forward.
What we need to do is find ways that reduce our carbon footprint by around 90%. Yes 90%. Scientist consider that the total capacity of the biosphere to absorb carbon (to avoid dangerous climate change) will have to reduce to 2.7billion tonnes of carbon/ year by 2030. Divide this by the expected population of 8.2billion people you arrive at a annual per capita carbon allowance of 0.33tonnes. The UK currently releases 2.6tonnes per capita - it will take a 87% reduction to get to 0.33tonnes per capita.
Global environment crisis requires global solutions. We need to harness all the potential that exists, in science and technology, and activate the whole of humanity to tackle this crisis.
The situation is too complex and the challenge too great to be left to the tyranny of the bottom line, but to begin to address it from a scientific and social standpoint, we must take action to interrupt the political link between elected representatives and the corporations – their common interest is to maintain a system that will prevent change.
You can’t bring about change in production without interrupting the political status quo.
That’s why the work AWTW is doing around creating alternative political structures is so crucial. We have no commitment whatsoever to the existing system or belief that it can be made to work.
And we it is our responsibility to call for change right here in Britain in our own country. The political system of parliament has failed us; it can’t deliver. We need to go beyond it.
If here in Britain we can develop and implement an alternative political system, with new democratic bodies, it would be an inspiration for the world.
It could begin straight away to take change the system of ownership, returning to a powerful tradition in Britain of commonwealth – but in a form for the 21st century. It could start right away on measures needed to halt the increase in emissions, and work with people in other countries for international action.
Lets look at energy - the way the private energy market is going you wouldn’t think obtaining all our energy requirements from carbon free renewable energy will ever happen. Even conservatively renewables could supply 75% of our current electricity demand, through:
Wind: The DTI considers the practical UK annual on-shore wind resource to be 50TWh and off-shore 100TWh, about 35-45% of the current electricity production. Micro-wind turbines could provide 10-15% of household electricity.
Wave and tidal power: The UK has an available wave power capacity of 15% of current electricity production plus a further 3% from tidal barrages
Solar Energy: The UK receives enough solar radiation each year that is equal to output of a thousand power stations. photovoltaic panels (converting solar radiation directly into electricity) could provide 5-10% of current electricity production. In addition, solar hot water panels could provide around half of a household's hot water.
Small scale hydro: could provide around 3% of current electricity production.
Biomass: Using thinning from local woods, trees in streets and parks or peoples' gardens as fuel biomass CHP networks could provide 4 to 6% of current electricity production
Waste: Organic waste can be converted into a biogas fuel through anaerobic digestion to fuel CHP.
Hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cells are electrochemical engines combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and heat which can be used in for buildings, such as in Woking.
There is an alternative to the private energy companies selling energy as a commodity for profits which could reduce the amount of primary energy further through the creation of community run not-for-profit decentralised energy supply networks. Energy (electricity and heating) is generated at or near to the point of use, which could also include a range of renewable technologies
We do not have to start from scratch – using this globalised planet as our starting point we can unite humanity in defence of its own future.
