Much
has been written and said about environmental problems. You name it
and governments renege on it. We may well ask with a score of
promises broken, then what future for planet Earth? Will governments
bring the world to the brink of ecological disaster? They are
certainly having a good try. Governments always hate spending more
than they absolutely have to, even if it is for the purpose of saving
the planet. They will delay even that minimal expenditure until
forced to respond to serious threats to the stable functioning of
their system – the flooding of Florida, perhaps.
The
teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has scolded EU leaders for
holding three emergency summits on Brexit and none on the threat
posed by climate change.
“Our
house is falling apart and our leaders need to start acting
accordingly because at the moment they are not. If our house was
falling apart our leaders wouldn’t go on like we do today,” she
said. “If our house was falling apart, you wouldn’t hold three
emergency Brexit summits and no emergency summit regarding the
breakdown of the climate and the environment.”
Climate
change activists continue to fail to locate global warming problems
in a wider social and economic context, in capitalism itself, as if
the profit motive was incidental to environmental concerns. Their
ideas of a world compatible with a profit-driven market economy are
illusory and their prospects for reform in the interests of humans
and the environment a fallacy. Profit is in fact the biggest
stumbling block to halting climate change and this blog has spared
no effort in exposing this fact. Were those in the environment
movement were to take the idea of socialism the world would stand a
far better chance of survival. Our society and our way of life need
to be in harmony with nature, not always battling against it, because
in a war against the planet and nature there can only be one winner,
and it will not be us. While the non-violent direct action policies
of Extinction Rebellion and others may achieve limited success
against government policies and lobbying for legislation, at the end
of the day they will never be able to combat the motive of profit
which is the root cause of the problems they wish to ameliorate and
are destined to struggle endlessly against the tide of capitalism.
Peoples' ideas and outlooks can and do change and the fact that more
and more people are becoming concerned about the way the environment
is abused is encouraging. But campaigning for new laws and more
conservation areas is not the answer. We need to get rid of a society
where a small minority can manipulate nature for their own ends and
replace it with one where we all have a real say in how nature is
used.
The
truth of the matter, and for many it is hard to accept but when it comes down to it, the participants in
the Extinction Rebellion's protests are actually campaigning to keep
capitalism going, while hoping to change its course. Within capitalism that is fighting a losing battle.
Capitalists are not about to cut
their profits for anybody. Have they ever reduced their profits to
provide jobs, end disease, or avoid wars? There’s no reason to
expect them to do such a thing in order to stop islands sinking into
the sea. That will simply be seen as unavoidable collateral damage in
the drive for profits. The world's resources are not owned by
everybody. They are owned by a small minority who use nature to
produce goods to be sold in order to make profits. Production for
profit means that costs must be kept as low as possible. The cheapest
methods of production must be used and the cheapest methods are
rarely those which have a minimal impact on nature. As long as
production is carried on for making profits and not for needs the
same problems of global warming, resource depletion and species
extinction will remain.
One
criticism often levelled at the Socialist Party is that the
complexities of modern life make socialism impossible. Capitalism's
pursuit of profits and its competitive pressures to keep costs down
have led to all sorts of inappropriate methods and materials being
used in production.
Here is one aspect where we can state categorically that socialism will be better than the present system. In a world of common ownership, with the elimination of cost and profit considerations taking action against waste will be simpler and more efficient than it is to-day. The Socialist Party advocates a radical extension of democracy, with a need to localise and decentralise political power, the need for sustainability and balance in our relationship to the environment, and a consequent rejection of the values of rampant consumerism.
A
rise in the world's average temperature would have disastrous
consequences on the present patterns of human life. The sea level
would rise, flooding areas which now supply much of the world's food
would no longer be able to do so. Once again, what must be done is
known. Steps must be taken to reduce current levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. First, by dramatically cutting back on the burning
of fossil fuels in power stations and in cars, trains, ships and
planes. Second, by stopping further deforestation as trees absorb
large amounts of CO2. So will capitalism step back from the brink?
Will it be able to prevent its drive for profit from destroying the
environment?
If
civilisation is to survive and we are not doomed to a return to the
Dark Ages, to protect the environment calls for the rational
allocation of resources and for the widest possible development of
democracy. This is a struggle for today. This is the struggle for
socialism. Before anything constructive can be
done, capitalism must go and, with it, the artificial division of the
world into separate, competing states. The Earth, and all its natural
and industrial resources, must become the common heritage of all
humanity. A democratic structure for making decisions at world as
well as at local levels must come into being. When
such a united world has been established (or is about to be
established) what scientists already know should be done can be done,
and humanity can begin to organise its relationship with the rest of
nature in a genuinely sustainable way.
A non-market order economic
system is the only framework within which humans can organise their
interaction with the rest of nature in ecologically acceptable ways.
Capitalism is simply unable to be run on green lines, as its motive
force is expansion and domination, with no thought for the
consequences for the people or the environment. Capitalism is unable
to cope with the ecological challenges that lie ahead, from global
warming, to depletion of resources. Corporations have no interest in
nil returns. It will be the people, not business, who, by sheer
weight of numbers, will end the tyranny that is being waged now by
international capitalism on the habitat.
No comments:
Post a Comment