Russia's Global Warming Denialism

In Siberia, Russia experienced one of its worst floods in decades. More than 20 deaths have already been reported, and more than 33,000 people have been affected. For most, that means much more than flooded basements or ground floors filled with mud; rather, it's the loss of their very livelihood. Their wooden houses were swept away by floodwaters, their animals perished, and their fields were destroyed. This is the latest in a series of disasters to devastate the region in recent months, after a long drought led to severe wildfires that destroyed crops and buildings.

Researchers at the Irkutsk State University urgently warn that global warming will lead to increasingly frequent periods of drought and heavy rainfall in Siberia. At the recent G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Putin told leaders that Russian meteorologists have determined that the country is warming at a rate two-and-a-half times faster than the global average.

Will the catastrophe in the Irkutsk region lead to a change in Russia's skeptical stance on climate change? Has the flooding convinced the people of Russia that increasingly extreme weather is a consequence of global warming? Will they demand their government take action to protect the environment? 

 The answer: No —  definitely not! Putin has absolutely no desire to initiate an active environmental policy and there is a very simple reason for that. The fight against climate change means reducing CO2 emissions, and these come mainly from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. But the extraction and export of those fuels are the basis of the Russian economy and the most important source of income for those who profit from it, as well as for the state revenues. A fundamental shift in climate policy would lead to the dismantling — or to put it in friendlier terms, a reorientation — of the current Russian business model. It is clear that the Russian people have no desire to make sacrifices for something as abstract as the concept of the global climate. They seem much more willing to suffer ever greater catastrophes resulting from climate change while vehemently denying that such a thing even exists. No one wants to listen to what experts have to say about the links between global warming and the catastrophe in Siberia. People brush off such talk as a "hoax." At most they are convinced that any talk of connections is simply an attempt by government agencies to divert attention away from their own failings and responsibilities.

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-russia-frozen-on-climate-change/a-49499528

Capitalism is careering the planet towards collapse. Socialists are in a race against time, trying to build a viable socialist movement before capitalism brings about irreparable global warming. Given the economic laws of capitalism future climate cataclysms are looming ahead. Socialists have set out a possible way of achieving an eventual zero-growth steady-state society operating in a stable and ecologically benign way. This could be achieved in three main phases.

First, there would have to be emergency action to relieve the worst problems of food shortages, health care and housing which affect billions of people throughout the world.

Secondly, longer term action to construct means of production and infrastructures such as transport systems for the supply of permanent housing and durable consumption goods. These could be designed in line with conservation principles, which means they would be made to last for a long time, using materials that where possible could be re-cycled and would require minimum maintenance.

Thirdly, with these objectives achieved there could be an eventual fall in production, and society could move into a stable mode. This would achieve a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth. On this basis, the world community could reconcile two great needs, the need to live in material well being whilst looking after the planet.

What would a society have to be like to be environmentally sustainable? It would be a society whose methods of providing for the needs of its members did not use up non-renewable resources quicker than renewable substitutes for them could be found; did not use up renewal resources quicker than nature could reproduce them; and did not release waste into nature quicker than the environment’s ability to absorb it. If these practices are abided by, then the relationship and interactions between human society and the rest of nature would be able to continue on a long-term basis – would be able to be “sustained” – without harming or degrading the natural environment on which humans depend.

The Socialist Party says that these practices could be applied only within the context of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources being the common heritage of all humanity under democratic control. In other words, we argue that capitalism and a sustainable relationship with the rest of nature are not compatible. The excessive consumption of both renewal and non-renewable resources and the release of waste that nature can’t absorb that currently go on are not just accidental but an inevitable result of capitalism’s very nature. Endless “growth” is built in to capitalism. However, this is not the growth of useful things as such but rather the growth of money-values. 

If a environmentalist campaigner answers that capitalism is in its very essence inherently unsustainable, then his or her only consistent response is to devote one’s political activities to the overthrow of capitalism. Whether it is called “the market economy”, “economic liberalism”, “free enterprise” (even mixed economy or state capitalism) or any other euphemism, the social system under which we live is capitalism. Capitalism is primarily an economic system of competitive capital accumulation out of the surplus value produced by wage labour. As a system it must continually accumulate or go into crisis. Consequently, human needs and the needs of our natural environment take second place to this imperative. The result is waste, pollution, environmental degradation and unmet needs on a global scale. The ecologist’s dream of a sustainable ‘zero growth’ within capitalism will always remain just that, a dream.