Just how serious is climate change?

[Wonton Carter]

I do realize its serious, but serious to the point of inevitable near-future extinction of the human race?

[The Jay]

Things like that are hard to predict but it is possible I suppose. If the scientists are scared shitless then you should be too.

[Sinister Intents]

I do realize its serious, but serious to the point of inevitable near-future extinction of the human race?

I believe climate change is a very serious and potentially lethal thing. Capitalism is contributing heavily to the destruction of the environment because of profit incentive, and profit always comes first to the capitalists. They don't care what happens to the environment so long as they get there hefty paycheck at the end of the day. I believe it's causing nearly irreversible damage to the world.

[Wonton Carter]

Welpers, my day is ruined. And probably the rest of my existence until we stop this shit.

[Sinister Intents]

Welpers, my day is ruined. And probably the rest of my existence until we stop this shit.

Don't let your day be ruined, just do your part and try to be environmentally friendly yourself, like I have become. I pick up trash in my area and I recycle things and reuse things. The best we can do is raise class consciousness and bring people to be more environmentally conscious as well.

[Wonton Carter]

Do you think people will get there in time to save the human race/EVERYTHING ON EARTH?

[The Jay]

Do you think people will get there in time to save the human race/EVERYTHING ON EARTH?

That part is harder to predict but each minute it gets harder.

[Sinister Intents]

Do you think people will get there in time to save the human race/EVERYTHING ON EARTH?

I think so to be honest, something will happen to force people to be more environmentally conscious. Something fucked up will happen because of humanities and capitalism's effects on the environment. Capitalists are asshole parasites, but if they want to keep exploiting the proletariat they'll have to do something to help fix the environment, but I'd rather we eliminate capitalism and lynch the pig capitalists that are a part of the problem.

[Wonton Carter]

Well, I'm kinda depressed now. But I'm gonna do my part, or at least try.

[ToxicAcidRed]

It's super cereal
-Al Gore

[Atsumari]

And concerning such an issue like this, I believe that we should not really care about which ideology can fix the problem, as long as it can minimize damage. Forget liberal capitalism, they are the people who caused such a problem in the first place and outright deny it in many cases, but we should be open to options from social democrats as well, including a "Green New Deal."

Of course, there are many scientists who are saying that it is too late anyway.

[Wonton Carter]

They say its too late to reverse, but can probably be stopped.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

And concerning such an issue like this, I believe that we should not really care about which ideology can fix the problem, as long as it can minimize damage. Forget liberal capitalism, they are the people who caused such a problem in the first place and outright deny it in many cases, but we should be open to options from social democrats as well, including a "Green New Deal."

Of course, there are many scientists who are saying that it is too late anyway.
It's capitalism's drive to consume that perpetuates the erosion of the environment and social democracy is simply an extension of capitalism, a release valve for workers' struggles that allows the machine to continue its consumption. Only communism can organise society in such a way as to not constantly be goaded into hunger for profits over rational plans to live harmoniously.

[Atsumari]

It's capitalism's drive to consume that perpetuates the erosion of the environment and social democracy is simply an extension of capitalism, a release valve for workers' struggles that allows the machine to continue its consumption. Only communism can organise society in such a way as to not constantly be goaded into hunger for profits over rational plans to live harmoniously.
The world is much more complex than that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you think people will get there in time to save the human race/EVERYTHING ON EARTH?although the situation is dire I think it's not likely that people will remain passive as climate change creates worse and worse problems. And by people not remaining passive, I don't just mean a spontanious serious enviro movement just appears, but that increased climate problems will be a massive human fight. The bad thing is that the ones who are organized to move on it are the capitalists and imperial poweres and the way they deal with it is to compete with each other to get what's left (coal, fracking, useable ag land ect) while they can and before the other firm or national power does.

But regular people won't be passive either, but unfortunately right now it still tends to be reactive when people do take action. We would need cross-border movements (since capitalist powers will not willingly cooperate on ths) that can rally a human alternative -- and workers have the most potential power and the class interest (although labor and enviro are often pitted against each other for short term interests or because of divide and rule tactics by bosses) in being able to lead such a fight.

In other words, don't mourn... Organize.

[Skyhilist]

Comrade, you may find this video helpful to gauge how bad climate change will be. It really depends a lot on how much the temperature increases. Basically though it's really bad. My father is a climate scientist, and this is based on what he says as well as all the other evidence I've seen.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/six-degrees-could-change-the-world/

[TheCommunistManifestor]

It's super cereal
-Al Gore
I wish i could thank this 100 times.

[Ritzy Cat]

It's serious but more of an augury if anything. Just do your part and we won't really have any major consequences. Its more the consumption/persons overpopulation that is a more pressing matter as of now. And a higher production of goods and resources to sustain these populations will inevitably lead towards a higher production of greenhouse gasses, thus speeding up climate change.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's serious but more of an augury if anything. Just do your part and we won't really have any major consequences. Its more the consumption/persons overpopulation that is a more pressing matter as of now. And a higher production of goods and resources to sustain these populations will inevitably lead towards a higher production of greenhouse gasses, thus speeding up climate change.

No it's not overpopulation, it's unplanned competitive over-accumulation for the sake of accumulation.

I disagree with the premise that consumer demand drives production rather than profit-seeking as this argument implies. Capitalism is not good at meeting the demand of the poor worldwide, it's good at generating profits through the production of food. I also don't think it's correct that the way capitalism develops and produces is a neutral or inevitable form of development. The only way to produce food is with a fossil fuel based infrastructure? Or is it just the most profitable way?

What does it mean to worry about population driving consumption when 80-something people have the equivalent wealth as half the planet?

[Blake's Baby]

I feel this debate is somewhat unreal.

Will we be able to prevent 'the destruction of all human life/everything (through climate change)'? No, we can't prevent something that isn't going to happen. No models predict the extinction of life.

Will humans respond to the warnings? The idea that people will somehow 'realise' is really naive (sorry Jimmy, I really think it is). What is this, the 1960s? Why haven't these people 'realised' over the past 30 years? What is it about the next 30 that's gonna change their minds? It's not like concern over the effects of industrial polution (including climate change) are new. There is some concern that we may already have released enough greenhouse gases to cause uncontrollable severe warming that could devastate human civilisation (because the largest centres of human population are near the coasts).

Turning the lights off in the room when we're not in it and putting our rubbish in the bin is less than pissing in the ocean in terms of effect. Average resource use by North Americans is around 12 times that of East Africans (incidently, another argument against 'overpopulation' - for the same resource footprint of 300 million Americans, you could feed clothe house educate and transport around 3.6 billion Africans - so the 'problem' that Ritzy Cat refers to is not overpopulation but unequal resource use).

In fact, I refer the hounourable members to a reply I gave earlier: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2453137&postcount=3

But of course, individuals have practically zero control of these processes. What does it matter if I eat 'green' organic fruit that is then carted half-way round the planet before I can eat it, as opposed to the intensively grown pesticide-ridden crap that's grown down the road? What actual difference does it make to the planet? Pretty much none.

Capitalism as a system is to blame, not individuals who buy mass-produced crap as opposed to green fair-trade zero-carbon ethically-sourced dolphin-friendly community-produced tea or lightbulbs or hats or whatever. That's just hippy lifestylist bollocks. Sure, drink organic orange juice because it's probably slightly less harmful to you personally, or because it tastes nicer, or even because it makes you feel better about yourself; but don't kid yourself that you're saving the planet by doing it. It's not feasable to 'save the planet' without destroying the insanity of capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Will humans respond to the warnings? The idea that people will somehow 'realise' is really naive (sorry Jimmy, I really think it is). What is this, the 1960s? Why haven't these people 'realised' over the past 30 years? What is it about the next 30 that's gonna change their minds? It's not like concern over the effects of industrial polution (including climate change) are new. There is some concern that we may already have released enough greenhouse gases to cause uncontrollable severe warming that could devastate human civilisation (because the largest centres of human population are near the coasts).

I agree with the rest of your argument but I think you are reading something in my argument that I did not intend. When did I argue that people will merely "realize" the problem or suggest that that is enough? In fact I think tons of people "realize" the problem but have no interest (capitalists), no capacity (individuals as consumers), or are not organized enough to do anything (working class and the poor).

I said that people won't remain passive in regards to climate change:


And by people not remaining passive, I don't just mean a spontanious serious enviro movement just appears, but that increased climate problems will be a massive human fight.

There's a great deal of general consciousness about the environment as it is - but it's either presented in abstract (and therefore seems like a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people) or the solutions that most people have accepted are consumerist/individualist. Some scientist talking about potential problems while offering no real practical solutions (or offering real solutions but to the wrong audience - taking them to ruling class agencies and institutions who have no interest in taking meaningful and proactive cooperative action) is not the same as when people are displaced because of an accident or abnormally extreme weather and a struggle over housing or whatnot results. You can talk about capitalist crisis to people in the 1990s, but talking to people about it now is different because of different circumstances even though working class conditions were getting worse in the 1990s as they still are. The economic bust obviously doesn't mean working class movements and militancy are automatic (or would be successful) but it does mean that the instability has led to struggles and fights of various kinds and degrees.

Climate problems will increase because of the way capitalism operates (unplanned, uncooperative, national-based, etc) and this will result in a battle on some level over how to respond. Ruling class "solutions" (really adaptations) might win out without much opposition (as is the case so far) but since the poor and working class are the ones who are and will continue to bear the brunt of the effects, it is an incredibly likely area of struggle in some form even if our side doesn't do it effectively, even if it isn't seen as an environmental struggle initially: but maybe a struggle over access to water between communities and agribusiness or industry, maybe a riot over lack of FEMA relief after a disaster, etc. Fracking, Nuclear power, the ability of governments to provide relief after natural disasters... these all very quickly can be practical questions of who controls what and how.

It's not the 60s when regulation was seen as a reasonable option by policy professionals, scientists, and even the ruling class. It's neoliberalism where reform and regulation are ideologically taboo but more importantly working class and popular resistance has been devastated - so again, nothing is automatic in terms of a movement that could have revolutionary or even reform/regulation potential. But it is a crisis that causes instability like major wars and so on and people aren't just passive recipients of such things but are forced to flee or fight or respond positively or negatively.

[Blake's Baby]

When did I argue that people will "realize" the problem?

I said that people won't remain passive in regards to climate change...

You're making a distinction here I don't understand.

Why will people stop being 'passive' when most people have been passive for the last 30 years? What is going to change the already-existing passivity, the already-existing climate-change denial industry, the already-existing vested interests that promote environmental destruction as 'progress'? I know many otherwise intelligent and not totally-ill-informed people who vehemently deny the reality of climate change or humanity''s role in it. If they're unconvinced now by the evidence why do you think anything will change?





...
There's a great deal of general consciousness about the environment as it is - but it's either presented in abstract (and therefore seems like a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people) or the solutions that most people have accepted are consumerist/individualist...

It is ' a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people'. Because the problem is capitalist production not individual lifestyle choices. Of course, people are told to be guilty that they, personally, killed all the dolphins by buying the wrong sort of tuna. Some don't care and buy the 'wrong' tuna. Some do care but buy the 'right' tuna instead of realising that the prolems of environmental destruction can never be overcome inside capitalism.





...when people are displaced because of an accident or abnormally extreme weather and a struggle over housing or whatnot results. You can talk about capitalist crisis to people in the 1990s, but talking to people about it now is different because of different circumstances even though working class conditions were getting worse in the 1990s as they still are...

You say this as if these things are not already happening. But it's pretty bleak prospect if the revolution relies on the fact that some Pacific Islanders are without a country because it's going to be unerwater in 40 years or the desertification of Burkina Faso provokes migrations to Nigeria.







... Ruling class "solutions" (really adaptations) might win out without much opposition (as is the case so far) but since the poor and working class are the ones who are and will continue to bear the brunt of the effects, it is an incredibly likely area of struggle in some form even if our side doesn't do it effectively, even if it isn't seen as an environmental struggle initially...

The problem is that it is seen as an 'environmental' struggle, seperate from the struggle against capitalism. What we (as socialists) have failed to do adequately is link the state of the environment as a 'problem' to the question of control of society. When you get headcases like the RCP in the UK claiming 'the green agenda is a plot by Thatcher to destroy the British coal industry' then that really doesn't help. Having been an Anarchist in the '80s and '90s I have a lot of respect for the environmental and animal rights activists that took on the road-builers, the nuclear power industry etc; but they don't link environmental activism with more than an abstentionist critique of capitalism. Sure, capitalism and patriarchy are bad; but they're also historically limited and we need to go beyond them by overthrowing capitalism, not just killing the agressive productive Earth-rapist in our heads.



...
It's not the 60s when regulation was seen as a reasonable option by policy professionals, scientists, and even the ruling class. It's neoliberalism where reform and regulation are ideologically taboo but more importantly working class and popular resistance has been devastated - so again, nothing is automatic in terms of a movement that could have revolutionary or even reform/regulation potential. But it is a crisis that causes instability like major wars and so on and people aren't just passive recipients of such things but are forced to flee or fight or respond positively or negatively.

But we live in 'democracies' an 'democracies' like nothing better than doing useless things in response to moral panic. Making sure we all stop using those terrible lightbulbs that kill polar bears, getting us to replace our fridges because they have the wrong coolant, or whatever.

I don't get where the awareness is going to come from if it hasn't already come from evidence, from the existing predictions, from the situations that already exist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why will people stop being 'passive' when most people have been passive for the last 30 years? What is going to change the already-existing passivity, the already-existing climate-change denial industry, the already-existing vested interests that promote environmental destruction as 'progress'? I know many otherwise intelligent and not totally-ill-informed people who vehemently deny the reality of climate change or humanity''s role in it. If they're unconvinced now by the evidence why do you think anything will change?What's different, or what looks to be a likely new near-term development, is experienced climate unpredictability on a generalized scale. I'm not imagining that more people reading about carbon emissions or watching lectures by scientists would change the present political dynamics around this. But increased irregular or extreme weather, if half of what some of the predictions suggest is true, would likely provoke system wide crises - problems experienced differently by different classes and leading to conflicts over how to deal with it.


It is ' a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people'. Because the problem is capitalist production not individual lifestyle choices. Of course, people are told to be guilty that they, personally, killed all the dolphins by buying the wrong sort of tuna. Some don't care and buy the 'wrong' tuna. Some do care but buy the 'right' tuna instead of realising that the prolems of environmental destruction can never be overcome inside capitalism.Capitalist production causes problems which are too big for workers to deal with? I guess Marx was wrong.

Dolphin extinction, Owls, or whatever are basically an abstract concept for most workers. The state issuing marshal law because levees broke; restrictions on water usage because of drought, fluctuation in prices of basic goods because of interruptions in ag production are things that impact all classes in different ways which means different possible views of what the crisis is and what should be done to deal with it arise.

Climate data alone also has suggests possible ramifications for various classes of course and I think maybe crudely we could say that the result so far is that the ruling class responds as it does: not being proactive and engaging in competition, exploitation and the maximization of profit (fossil fuel crisis... better suck it all out of Antarctic rocks faster than China/EU/Russia does!). The middle class responds as it typically does: trying to individually and moralistically buy a solution. And workers are either just not given the information or are just too under-confident, unorganized, and beat down with the problems right in front of them to worry about something that might happen maybe or not.


You say this as if these things are not already happening. But it's pretty bleak prospect if the revolution relies on the fact that some Pacific Islanders are without a country because it's going to be unerwater in 40 years or the desertification of Burkina Faso provokes migrations to Nigeria.Wars are already always happening... I guess wars can't potentially lead to instability and class conflicts? Again, I am not talking about some general awareness of issues, but of increased climate unpredictability leading to system wide issues. This is not an argument for crisis automatically producing any kind of specific responce from below or spontaneous revolution or militancy or class consciousness. But things like increased drought or floods or increasing loss of coastal areas and infrastructure cause problems that capitalism can't deal with in ways that might not also begin to provoke struggles or tensions. Workers will bear the brunt of the ill-effects and left alone capital will respond to the crisis in self-protecting and capital expanding ways.

The major subjective question IMO is what is the balance of class forces (are there working class movements are there revolutionary tendencies organically connected to the class, etc?).


The problem is that it is seen as an 'environmental' struggle, seperate from the struggle against capitalism. What we (as socialists) have failed to do adequately is link the state of the environment as a 'problem' to the question of control of society.This is exactly what I am arguing could become a more apparent and overt tension due to increased instability, increased reliance on the state to deal with larger problems (like in Katrina), increased attempts to deal with these things in ways that benefit capital while neglecting (at best) the poor and working class.


When you get headcases like the RCP in the UK claiming 'the green agenda is a plot by Thatcher to destroy the British coal industry' then that really doesn't help. Having been an Anarchist in the '80s and '90s I have a lot of respect for the environmental and animal rights activists that took on the road-builers, the nuclear power industry etc; but they don't link environmental activism with more than an abstentionist critique of capitalism. Sure, capitalism and patriarchy are bad; but they're also historically limited and we need to go beyond them by overthrowing capitalism, not just killing the agressive productive Earth-rapist in our heads.No disagreement and these are all subjective problems/concerns that are indeed roadblocks or mis-steps IMO.

I think we're in agreement that the environmental crisis is not about the environment in the abstract, as something outside of class relations and society, but it's a crisis of who controls what and on what basis. But I think that the attitudes you describe will become less viable in conditions where the "environment" isn't something "out-there" to be moralistically protected, but when environmental issues lead to more direct and generalized problems. If several regions have a couple of Katrina or Sandy-like events every year or so then I can't imagine that there would be no possibility of conflicts over things like relief, re-housing, the use of state-repression to maintain order in emergencies, etc.


I don't get where the awareness is going to come from if it hasn't already come from evidence, from the existing predictions, from the situations that already exist.To me this argument is like asking - where is class struggle going to come from if not from people having awareness of Marx's Capital? People experience exploitation, people don't like it, but as long as they are convinced it's just them, or just that job, or whatever then they feel helpless and demoralized and so on. But economic instability like a depression can cause people to see the generalized nature that experience potentially which can potentially lead to increased consciousness and militancy and so on. Potentially. There are always any number of possible outcomes based on whatever the conditions are at whatever time.

[tallguy]

I do realize its serious, but serious to the point of inevitable near-future extinction of the human race?
Yes

[Blake's Baby]

...
To me this argument is like asking - where is class struggle going to come from if not from people having awareness of Marx's Capital? People experience exploitation, people don't like it, but as long as they are convinced it's just them, or just that job, or whatever then they feel helpless and demoralized and so on. But economic instability like a depression can cause people to see the generalized nature that experience potentially which can potentially lead to increased consciousness and militancy and so on. Potentially. There are always any number of possible outcomes based on whatever the conditions are at whatever time.

I don't think people need an awareness of Capital. I don't think people need to read Silent Spring or any such great work of ecology. Some people are into theory, some people aren't. Doesn't much matter in the end.

"...as long as they are convinced it's just them, or just that job, or whatever then they feel helpless and demoralized and so on..." - I couldn't agree more. And there's a reason we feel 'helpless and demoralized' as individuals. As individuals, we really can't change the world, and we're told (to go back to the liberals/middle classes 'buying' a solution) that it's our fault as consumers.

But, being consumers isn't our fault; we don't chose as individuals whether the system is capitalist or not. We can only chose that as a class.

Look at this bit again please:

ME: It is ' a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people'. Because the problem is capitalist production not individual lifestyle choices. Of course, people are told to be guilty that they, personally, killed all the dolphins by buying the wrong sort of tuna. Some don't care and buy the 'wrong' tuna. Some do care but buy the 'right' tuna instead of realising that the problems of environmental destruction can never be overcome inside capitalism.

YOU: Capitalist production causes problems which are too big for workers to deal with? I guess Marx was wrong.

Are you trying to claim that we can overcome environmental destruction inside capitalism?

Are you trying to claim it is a question of personal choice?

If the answer is no, what exactly are you arguing against here?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Look at this bit again please:

ME: It is ' a "problem too big to deal with" for regular people'. Because the problem is capitalist production not individual lifestyle choices and again, the effects of capitalist production are something that workers can not deal with? Isn't workers negating capitalist production the whole freaking point?!!


Of course, people are told to be guilty that they, personally, killed all the dolphins by buying the wrong sort of tuna. Some don't care and buy the 'wrong' tuna. Some do care but buy the 'right' tuna instead of realising that the problems of environmental destruction can never be overcome inside capitalism. where did I argue that these problems would be solved by capital or through reforms? I am raging that increased climate instability would produce likely class conflicts. Water rationing, privatization in the aftermath of disasters, fluctuations in the prices of basic commodities, loss of costal land, would produce class conflicts. I don't know if workers could effectively organize something in response, but I can't imagine people simply rolling over passively in the face of increasing and more extreme weather instability and resulting problems.


YOU: Capitalist production causes problems which are too big for workers to deal with? I guess Marx was wrong.

Are you trying to claim that we can overcome environmental destruction inside capitalism?

Are you trying to claim it is a question of personal choice?

If the answer is no, what exactly are you arguing against here?no, where are you getting this from? I am arguing exactlyWhat I mean and I resent the implication that I am being deceitful. Do you think that I believe that workers can overcome capitalist production... Within capitalism too? Can you drop the reform stawman now please?

I am claiming that it looks like instability due to climate change may create system-wide problems in which the "environmental question" is much more of a practical class question. It would provoke fissures because the answers capital will come up with will make more hardships on top of it for workers. Hurricane Katrina is not the same environmental question as a spotted owl or baby seal. WWI or two is not the same as a fairly limited imperialist conflict.

But are the imperial conflicts or overproduction crises too big a problem for workers to deal with? Why do you put the possibility of climate change creating instability in a different category?

Rapid and unplanned competitive accumulation and "sustainability" or a planned cooperative global response are incompatible. So capital has no real ability to handle this in ways that would not increase hardships for workers. I think this will lead to class based conflicts over the use of resources and so on. If working class communities can organize anything, if they can link the struggle to economic struggles, (let alone if they are successful) is all subjective and unknown. But I'm pretty certain that more regular droughts, interruption in production, destruction in costal areas and poorly built working class areas, more hurricanes, etc are not just going to result in total class passivity.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is once of twice a day where I think Maoist Third-worldists are actually correct.

It is hard for me to think that climate change would have a serious impact on people in the global north. Some places like Greenland would probably boom, whilst Miami and Singapore can hire Dutch engineers to dam water and manage the system of levies. But there is little reason to believe the lives of most revlefters will change much except for weird superstorms. Even middle income countries might manage, although barely.

Where I think it will be dead serious are countries like Bangladesh. Frankly, I don't think the global north will give much of a damn.

And there is precedent for this. infectious diseases are a leading cause of mortality in poor countries, just barely managed at the seams in middle-income countries, and apart from the rare aberration like swine flu, antibiotic resistance, or the occasional tropical disease outbreak remain essentially a non-issue in the global north. These are just a hazard, much as earthquakes and hurricanes are. They are not existential crises the way they are a huge fraction of the world.

The net result? Aside from a few philanthropists working selectively on ambiguous problems, rich countries invest next to nothing to solve the problem. This makes it effectively "less serious."

I usually have little patience for maoism-third worldism, but when it comes to issues that systematically affect the global south, particularly the most vulnerable societies, I think it would be madness to expect, under the current system, for the global north to respond in any meaningful way.

I have little reason to believe climate change would force a calculation that would be much different, particularly if already wealthy countries like Canada can actually get a benefit from it.

[Blake's Baby]

and again, the effects of capitalist production are something that workers can not deal with? Isn't workers negating capitalist production the whole freaking point?!! ...

You can only be arguing one of two things here.

1 - workers as individuals can 'negate capitalism';

2 - workers collectively can 'negate capitlism'.

As I'm claiming only 2 is possible, and you're arguing with me, I can only assume that mean you think 1 is possible.

Is this the case?


...where did I argue that these problems would be solved by capital or through reforms?...

Why then are you arguing against my assertion that only the working class can 'solve' the problems of environmental destruction through the overthrow of capitalism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is once of twice a day where I think Maoist Third-worldists are actually correct.

It is hard for me to think that climate change would have a serious impact on people in the global north. Some places like Greenland would probably boom, whilst Miami and Singapore can hire Dutch engineers to dam water and manage the system of levies. But there is little reason to believe the lives of most revlefters will change much except for weird superstorms. Even middle income countries might manage, although barely.

Where I think it will be dead serious are countries like Bangladesh. Frankly, I don't think the global north will give much of a damn.

And there is precedent for this. infectious diseases are a leading cause of mortality in poor countries, just barely managed at the seams in middle-income countries, and apart from the rare aberration like swine flu, antibiotic resistance, or the occasional tropical disease outbreak remain essentially a non-issue in the global north. These are just a hazard, much as earthquakes and hurricanes are. They are not existential crises the way they are a huge fraction of the world.

The net result? Aside from a few philanthropists working selectively on ambiguous problems, rich countries invest next to nothing to solve the problem. This makes it effectively "less serious."

I usually have little patience for maoism-third worldism, but when it comes to issues that systematically affect the global south, particularly the most vulnerable societies, I think it would be madness to expect, under the current system, for the global north to respond in any meaningful way.

I have little reason to believe climate change would force a calculation that would be much different, particularly if already wealthy countries like Canada can actually get a benefit from it.

I think it's true that there are differences - coastal shanties would be much more devistated than urban ghettos - but I think it's more or less the same potential impacts though in different circumstances. Capital of course can be fine with isolated massive destruction - it can help destroy excess capital, create new openings for investment and production, ideologically it can be used as an excuse for privatizations or imperialism. But while devastation from these these things may be worse due to lack of infrastructure and the level of poverty, etc I think the way disasters impact different classes is going to have a similar dynamic anywhere. Capital can bounce back from Hurricane Katrina, but the population didn't and tons of poor people were simply displaced: issues of post-flood housing, relief, police racism, the racial inequality in construction hiring, the move to privatize New Orleans public schools, were all class conflicts heightened by the disaster. Less tangibly, the social and class aspects of the disaster also had a big ideological impact.

And I don't think the "Global North" will respond - any more than India or China will decide to not trade their ability to continue grow into economic powers for "sustainability". It won't have anything to do with if middle class people in the US are hurting directly or not, and it definitely won't have anything to do with if workers are loosing their homes or dieing from lack of infrastructure or services capable of dealing with unpredictable and extreme weather. But I think that because of the uneveness of the effects, there's potential that these issues can create more class struggles; because of increased frequency or generalization of acute weather problems, it could also be that rather than just being local class struggles over housing after a disaster, that class responses can become more generalized too.

Or this could intensify and the class response remains diffuse, unfocused, limited, and confused and we are all pulled under while the climate instability reaches a point that capitalist powers go to war and we all get nuked. Or the present science could be hyperbole and the effects are too slow to cause any crisis and some other systemic problem of capitalism causes revolution or ruin.

[Le Socialiste]

As I'm claiming only 2 is possible, and you're arguing with me, I can only assume that mean you think 1 is possible.

. . .

Why then are you arguing against my assertion that only the working class can 'solve' the problems of environmental destruction through the overthrow of capitalism?

You seriously have me scratching my head, here. I mean, I've read yours and JH's responses twice now and I can't seem to locate anything resembling the conclusions you've put forward here. :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

That's why I'm asking for clarification. JH appears to be attempting to argue with me. But what he's arguing seems to be what I'm saying anyway. So in arguing, I can only assume he's trying to argue something else. I'm trying to find out what it is.

Otherwise, what's wrong with me asserting that as individuals workers aren't in a position to influence the environmental destruction caused by capitalism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's why I'm asking for clarification. JH appears to be attempting to argue with me. But what he's arguing seems to be what I'm saying anyway. So in arguing, I can only assume he's trying to argue something else. I'm trying to find out what it is.

Otherwise, what's wrong with me asserting that as individuals workers aren't in a position to influence the environmental destruction caused by capitalism?I've been arguing against these straw-men you've made of what I I've been attempting, and I guess failing, to say. I have repeatedly stressed where I see our points of agreement - specifically that the environment is a class issue of who determines production and the relationship of society to nature, not a matter of morals or individual consumption.

My argument intitally was geared towards what I saw as a sort of pessimistic view by others in the thread that workers will just be passive victims of increasing climate change. While they will face the brunt of it, I don't think these things can happen without some level of struggle involved because of the inherent class and system sources of these problems. My arguement with you has been based around what I saw as your claim that increased climate instability will only result in the same individualist and moralistic solutions offered by the past couple of decades of "environmentally aware" activists. You said it was nieve that people will just realize the problem when it's been known about for 30 years. As I have said, I don't think that the possible difference in the near-future is a matter of people "waking up" because they get some info about carbon, but of actual crisis and impacts from climate change creating conflicts which make the class implications more acute (and therefore the possibility of a working class based struggle over environmental issues against capitalist production). If I've been over-emphasizing points where we do agree already in my responses, it was just an attempt to clarify because I wasn't sure where you were getting these ideas that I was suggesting that workers individually solve the problems of climate change through "better" consumption or whatnot and not by challenging capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't then unerstand why you were constantly criticising my formulations that environmental catastrophe is not something individual workers can do anything about, if you agree with me that environmental catastrophe is not something individual workers can do anything about.

Then I suppose our differences return to the point where I accused you of naivitee. I don't see why at any point soon 'quantity becomes quality' in terms of 'more + more + more + more = different'.

If the last 30 years and more of environmental movement propaganda plus ecological disasters have resulted in a situation where vast ammounts of people don't even believe in anthropogenic climate change, why do you see the situation changing in the near future with 'more of the same'?

It seems to me that something other than 'quantity' is missing here, and my argument is that it's the failure to adequately relate the problems of the environment to the nature of power and the economy in capitalist society.

Your approach seems to be similar to the Stalinists' 'First Hitler then us!' approach - we need to wait for it to get worse before the working class will realise that we collectively need to make it better; mine is that socialists have failed to, and need to, be an active factor in generalising 'environmental consciousness' as a component of class consciousness, because the proletariat represents the interests of the entire human race and that includes not living on a poisoned planet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your approach seems to be similar to the Stalinists' 'First Hitler then us!' approach - we need to wait for it to get worse before the working class will realise that we collectively need to make it better; mine is that socialists have failed to, and need to, be an active factor in generalising 'environmental consciousness' as a component of class consciousness, because the proletariat represents the interests of the entire human race and that includes not living on a poisoned planet.

Jesus fucking Christ, you are arguing things I have gone out of my way to say that I AM NOT ARGUING.

I explicitly said that I don't think crisis automatically leads to revolutionary consciousness or organization or anything. I explicitly said the subjective factors of how and if workers could respond in a meaningful way are important and also totally up in the air.

Ok, sorry to respond in frustration, but it's aggravating to have my explicit arguments not picked up on in favor of secret (lifestyle... reformist... and now Stalinist) arguments that are supposedly hidden between the lines (especially when I tried to pre-clarify that I am not making those arguments).

You are totally correct, we should not wait, subjectively we should be trying to link these things, to try and win arguments about environmental struggles based in class politics that actively look to working class communities and concerns rather than individual or moralistic attitudes about an idealized "nature" conceptually outside of class society.

But where I'm coming from is that I don't think it's a matter of waiting, rather it seems like this is going to be happening at an increasing rate. The working class might not be able to do anything and we're fucked, but I don't think the the problems posed will just fall on us without also creating some form and level of resistance.


I don't then unerstand why you were constantly criticising my formulations that environmental catastrophe is not something individual workers can do anything about, if you agree with me that environmental catastrophe is not something individual workers can do anything about.I am not criticizing that position, I have made it myself repeatedly. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said at first as being "the working class can not do anything about this". I originally had the impression that you were arguing that climate issues were outside of class issues... as in: "well, the working class can't do anything about it, so it's better to just focus on economic issues and after the revolution people will take up these problems".


Then I suppose our differences return to the point where I accused you of naivitee. I don't see why at any point soon 'quantity becomes quality' in terms of 'more + more + more + more = different'. Ok yeah, this is actually a difference in perspective. I am not an expert on the climate or a scientist so I'm basing this mostly on what the climate scientists seem to be saying. It could be some bad science or hyperbole, but generally it seems like people are saying that the climate will rapidly become unpredictable in a span of decades.

The "quality" that seems different to me is like the difference between a cyclical downturn and a crisis of profitability. One Katrina or Sandy or whatnot can be contained and capital can benefit from it in some ways. But if that's the "new normal" of climate and there are more regular freak things like that and larger regional problems, then I think it is likely it will pose problems that capitalism is not very good at dealing with even on its own terms and definitely will not deal with it on terms that satisfy workers. Climate is a cross border situation (which competition and imperialism will prevent from being dealt with by capital... except maybe with increased imperial rivalry and competition), the cause of the problems is rooted in the very heart of what drives capitalism and workers will face the brunt of the effects. This suggests to me that these problems will take on crisis-like proportions because capitalists can't "solve" it and workers won't be able to live with it.


It seems to me that something other than 'quantity' is missing here, and my argument is that it's the failure to adequately relate the problems of the environment to the nature of power and the economy in capitalist society.I don't disagree which is why I ended my initial post about this with the old "don't mourn, organize" bit.

But that's the subjective question I mentioned that I could not begin to answer with any accuracy. Would there be a working class environmental movement, an revolutionary-oriented ecology movement, or will there be an economic-based worker movement that can then connect to the effects of climate change in a class-based way? Maybe or maybe class organization and consciousness will be more or less the same as now and the struggles will not generalize and so poor people dealing with one effect in one location are isolated from workers dealing with a different effect somewhere else and none of them are able to really begin to get at the root problems.

The hurricaine in NYC resulted in "Occupy Sandy", but what would it have looked like if there had been a militant worker's movement instead (of a left-populist protest movement) when a Sandy hit a city? Workers out of necessity (and through their experience and consciousness developed in labor struggles) might begin to distribute necessary things themselves. It's speculative, but I think there are precedents.

At any rate I do think what might happen in the near-future seems qualitatively different because it is not localized or would not cause an occasional disruption somewhere, but would become more constant and create instability throughout the system which will provoke different responses from different classes and so I don't think we'd passivity become the victims of climate problems, but it will be a battle on some level and intensify existing problems and tensions in capitalism.

[Wonton Carter]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Blake's Baby]

Jesus fucking Christ, you are arguing things I have gone out of my way to say that I AM NOT ARGUING.

I explicitly said that I don't think crisis automatically leads to revolutionary consciousness or organization or anything. I explicitly said the subjective factors of how and if workers could respond in a meaningful way are important and also totally up in the air.

Ok, sorry to respond in frustration, but it's aggravating to have my explicit arguments not picked up on in favor of secret (lifestyle... reformist... and now Stalinist) arguments that are supposedly hidden between the lines (especially when I tried to pre-clarify that I am not making those arguments)...

As you later say that you've misunderstood what I was saying, maybe we're just both very bad at explaining ourselves today?

What has been confusing me about what you've been posting is that (after I initially criticised what I took to be an overly-complacent attitude of 'the crises will get worse and that will provoke people to react') you disagreed with me, then seemed to be trying to make the same points I was.


...You are totally correct, we should not wait, subjectively we should be trying to link these things, to try and win arguments about environmental struggles based in class politics that actively look to working class communities and concerns rather than individual or moralistic attitudes about an idealized "nature" conceptually outside of class society...

OK then, on the major point I think we're in agreement.


...But where I'm coming from is that I don't think it's a matter of waiting, rather it seems like this is going to be happening at an increasing rate. The working class might not be able to do anything and we're fucked, but I don't think the the problems posed will just fall on us without also creating some form and level of resistance...

OK, this is perhaps an area of disagreement. Let's leave aside the question of whether 'waiting' is necessary/advisable/whatever. You are looking for resitance emerging from the environmental situation. I don't see it, because you're saying 'things are going to get worse', and I'm saying 'things are worse'. I'm taking a long perspective on this, I've been around the environmental movement for 30 years or so and the problems that have already fallen on us haven't created that resistance, so what resistance in and of itself will the problems of the environment create that it hasn't already?

This is why I keep trying to stress the role of socialists in linking our habitation of the natural environment with a critique of capitalism. If our socialism isn't also 'green' it's useless - hence my mention of the RCP in the UK from the 1980s, who are even now (the PCP has ceased to be but some individuals involved have continued with the agenda) do everything they can to equate the environmental movement with Nazis, etc.



... I am not criticizing that position, I have made it myself repeatedly. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said at first as being "the working class can not do anything about this". I originally had the impression that you were arguing that climate issues were outside of class issues... as in: "well, the working class can't do anything about it, so it's better to just focus on economic issues and after the revolution people will take up these problems"...

I have tried to make it clear that I meant the working class cannot deal with the problems of the environment, as individuals, inside capitalism, and must instead deal with it as a class and as part of the revolutionary transformation of society. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.


...Ok yeah, this is actually a difference in perspective. I am not an expert on the climate or a scientist so I'm basing this mostly on what the climate scientists seem to be saying. It could be some bad science or hyperbole, but generally it seems like people are saying that the climate will rapidly become unpredictable in a span of decades...

I don't know. It seems to me that 1-the 'environmental movement' as a whole is probably further down the road in Europe than in the US and 2-the global climate has already become somewhat unpredictable over the last 2 decades. To a large extent your position reminds me of what I thought in the 1980s (honestly I'm not trying to be patronising here, but it might sound like I am). 'Well it's obvious that people aren't going to stand for this, the effects of environmental destruction are going to be undeniable and people will be forced to revolt against them'. But they didn't over the last 20-30 years, so I don't know what's going to be different in the near future, if not us making more effort to 'join the dots'.


...The "quality" that seems different to me is like the difference between a cyclical downturn and a crisis of profitability. One Katrina or Sandy or whatnot can be contained and capital can benefit from it in some ways. But if that's the "new normal" of climate and there are more regular freak things like that and larger regional problems, then I think it is likely it will pose problems that capitalism is not very good at dealing with even on its own terms and definitely will not deal with it on terms that satisfy workers. Climate is a cross border situation (which competition and imperialism will prevent from being dealt with by capital... except maybe with increased imperial rivalry and competition), the cause of the problems is rooted in the very heart of what drives capitalism and workers will face the brunt of the effects. This suggests to me that these problems will take on crisis-like proportions because capitalists can't "solve" it and workers won't be able to live with it...

You may be right. But as I say, I already thought that would happen and it didn't yet, so I'm trying to find out what you think will be different in the coming period. I'm not sure how much more catastrophic the weather can be.


...I don't disagree which is why I ended my initial post about this with the old "don't mourn, organize" bit.

But that's the subjective question I mentioned that I could not begin to answer with any accuracy. Would there be a working class environmental movement, an revolutionary-oriented ecology movement, or will there be an economic-based worker movement that can then connect to the effects of climate change in a class-based way? Maybe or maybe class organization and consciousness will be more or less the same as now and the struggles will not generalize and so poor people dealing with one effect in one location are isolated from workers dealing with a different effect somewhere else and none of them are able to really begin to get at the root problems...

1, 2, and 3, please; we already have option 4, it's a bit shit.


...The hurricaine in NYC resulted in "Occupy Sandy", but what would it have looked like if there had been a militant worker's movement instead (of a left-populist protest movement) when a Sandy hit a city? Workers out of necessity (and through their experience and consciousness developed in labor struggles) might begin to distribute necessary things themselves. It's speculative, but I think there are precedents...

It would have looked even more awesome - from here, OCCUPY Sandy was probably the best thing to come from the OCCUPY movement, it was a marvellous sight to see a whole bunch of demonised people (constant media portrayals as being being greedy privileged and out-of-touch, etc) turning round and saying 'hey, you're having a disaster? We can help', and then being better at it than the US government. Honestly, awesome.


...At any rate I do think what might happen in the near-future seems qualitatively different because it is not localized or would not cause an occasional disruption somewhere, but would become more constant and create instability throughout the system which will provoke different responses from different classes and so I don't think we'd passivity become the victims of climate problems, but it will be a battle on some level and intensify existing problems and tensions in capitalism.

Well, maybe. I think it's possible, but I keep stressing the subjective because I'd say exactly that perspective is what has spectacularly not happened over the last 30 years. 'People' (whatever that means in a generalised context) seem happy enough to deny the undeniable and keep their heads in the sand.

Maybe as the frequecy or severity (or both) of extreme climatic events increases, more people will come to realise that only by overthrowing capitalism can we begin to tackle these problems. I doubt the events in themselves will create instability in the system though. There's a drought in Ukraine (let's say) so the international price of wheat goes up... so what? Unless the working class responds, capitalism can readjust.

[Ritzy Cat]

No it's not overpopulation, it's unplanned competitive over-accumulation for the sake of accumulation.

I disagree with the premise that consumer demand drives production rather than profit-seeking as this argument implies. Capitalism is not good at meeting the demand of the poor worldwide, it's good at generating profits through the production of food. I also don't think it's correct that the way capitalism develops and produces is a neutral or inevitable form of development. The only way to produce food is with a fossil fuel based infrastructure? Or is it just the most profitable way?

What does it mean to worry about population driving consumption when 80-something people have the equivalent wealth as half the planet?

I feel you may have misinterpreted my post.As I said, it is mostly just an augury. Given the current system of capitalism and the rate in which capital is being accumulated and expended in order to produce food and other resources is and will be a problem to climate change. Yes, it is the most profitable way, for the select individuals. Yes there are many other alternatives. Yes they are better for the environment and better for the global population.

In capitalist enviro-economics (as I like to call it) there are two types of overpopulation: consumption & people population, where in the former it is because everyone in a given geographic area "consumes too many resources", thus resulting in environmental degradation, pollution etc. and in the latter the sheer amount of people is causing similar affects and disease, etc. This is simply definitions. I do not agree with them, I do not support them because they are concepts built off the ideals of capitalism. But they have to be used to describe phenoemon WITHIN the system because they are in fact taking into account the capitalist influences, accumulation of capital, wealth disparity & heavy industry , etc.

I am not some sort of reformist wealth-redistribution libertarian green party saint, I am just explaining the nature of how climate change and population are related in the capitalist system.

I am aware the true heart of the problem lies in the drive for capital and how the resources in many countries are being essentially stolen and then burned for mass climate change. This isn't to say we can't change it. You are right, in the fact behind what is driving the forces behind the capitalist system, but population is closely intertwined into the economic ideals regarding climate change and resource usage, etc.

Of course, if everyone has access to what they need food & resource-wise, which can be easily done without the climate-altering effects of heavy industry and imperialistic corporations, then it simply does not matter the popultion. Until we reach a very large amount of people, the Earth can sustain them, if it is devoid of the people that hoard these resources and produce mass climate change in the process in industrial accumulation of capital.

[MarxSchmarx]

JH - in essence I tend to agree, but I think it is important that we take current projections of meteorological impacts of climate change into account. The tropics and to some degree the subtropics are likelier to bear the brunt of the worst effects of climate change. This already threatens to exacerbate the differences between the OECD world and the developing world, because much of the OECD is located outside of areas where the very worst effects of climate change would be felt.



I think it's true that there are differences - coastal shanties would be much more devistated than urban ghettos - but I think it's more or less the same potential impacts though in different circumstances. Capital of course can be fine with isolated massive destruction - it can help destroy excess capital, create new openings for investment and production, ideologically it can be used as an excuse for privatizations or imperialism. But while devastation from these these things may be worse due to lack of infrastructure and the level of poverty, etc I think the way disasters impact different classes is going to have a similar dynamic anywhere. Capital can bounce back from Hurricane Katrina, but the population didn't and tons of poor people were simply displaced: issues of post-flood housing, relief, police racism, the racial inequality in construction hiring, the move to privatize New Orleans public schools, were all class conflicts heightened by the disaster. Less tangibly, the social and class aspects of the disaster also had a big ideological impact.



So consider this question: I think it's fair to say Taiwan, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea would all be in serious trouble. But I think it is plausible that in these 3 countries (a "global north" country, a middle income country, and an economic basketcase) the effects of climate change on the class struggle will, I posit, differ dramatically. I would not be surprised if the Taiwanese bourgeoisie could use its considerable wealth to manage the crisis to not immeserite its working class. I suspect the Filipino bourgeosie would ensure that a few key cities where their wealth is concentrated remain more or less functional at the expense of the rural areas, and that existing trends of urbanization and ghettoization are accelerated as climate refugees move into these relative "havens". And finally I would not be surprised if the bourgeoisie of Papua New Guinea that can leave accelerate their emigration and the remaining oversee societal collapse like what we saw in Haiti.



And I don't think the "Global North" will respond - any more than India or China will decide to not trade their ability to continue grow into economic powers for "sustainability". It won't have anything to do with if middle class people in the US are hurting directly or not, and it definitely won't have anything to do with if workers are loosing their homes or dieing from lack of infrastructure or services capable of dealing with unpredictable and extreme weather. But I think that because of the uneveness of the effects, there's potential that these issues can create more class struggles; because of increased frequency or generalization of acute weather problems, it could also be that rather than just being local class struggles over housing after a disaster, that class responses can become more generalized too.


Really? I think if the projections were that London, Washington DC and New York were as doomed as Nauru, there would be a lot more response from the global north. Don't you?



Or this could intensify and the class response remains diffuse, unfocused, limited, and confused and we are all pulled under while the climate instability reaches a point that capitalist powers go to war and we all get nuked. Or the present science could be hyperbole and the effects are too slow to cause any crisis and some other systemic problem of capitalism causes revolution or ruin.

In fairness, I think the science (at least meteorology) is one thing, the social response is another. The science might not be hyperbole, but the predictions about how people react to it/what the agricultural impacts are/the financial/infrastructural repurcussions, etc... might be. I think it is much harder to predict how a capitalist power like, say, Indonesia would fare if climate change does XYZ rather than predicting whether climate change will do XYZ.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, this is perhaps an area of disagreement. Let's leave aside the question of whether 'waiting' is necessary/advisable/whatever. You are looking for resitance emerging from the environmental situation. I don't see it, because you're saying 'things are going to get worse', and I'm saying 'things are worse'. I'm taking a long perspective on this, I've been around the environmental movement for 30 years or so and the problems that have already fallen on us haven't created that resistance, so what resistance in and of itself will the problems of the environment create that it hasn't already?In short I imagine the difference would be effects which can not be contained or simply solved through more or less normal dealings of the system. One Katrina is fine for the system, but if capital begins to doubt US infrastructure reliability due to extreme weather, then a series of questions about how to deal with a much bigger issue arises. That would be just one possible side effect, others would be connected with agriculture, housing, disaster relief, etc. Anyway, capital would have to deal with some of these things and it would probably do it on the backs of people, but because the climate effects impact poor people in the tropics living near the shore or workers in the US living in sub-sea level slums, etc, there is the potential for battles along these lines over environmental issues.

What I originally thought you were implying was that people would simply read the right climate data and then (in regards to my argument) a movement would emerge. My argument was more that increase climate stability looks like it could also be disruptive to the system as a whole if the climate is less reliable. This disruption means that there would be battles broken down by class lines over how to solve the crisis. I think tensions (which already exposed themselves in things like Katrina) are more or less inevitable - if people can do anything is the subjective and unknown factor which is where your main argument fits in.


This is why I keep trying to stress the role of socialists in linking our habitation of the natural environment with a critique of capitalism. If our socialism isn't also 'green' it's useless - hence my mention of the RCP in the UK from the 1980s, who are even now (the PCP has ceased to be but some individuals involved have continued with the agenda) do everything they can to equate the environmental movement with Nazis, etc.No argument here. In the US there were probably groups who had similar lines - probably to excuse similar environmental issues in China or Russia, but mainly the labor unions were divided against the environmentalists in a crude jobs vs. environment framework. This would be accomplishing the opposite of what is needed - not declaring more support for the exploiters.

[Jimmie Higgins]

JH - in essence I tend to agree, but I think it is important that we take current projections of meteorological impacts of climate change into account. The tropics and to some degree the subtropics are likelier to bear the brunt of the worst effects of climate change. This already threatens to exacerbate the differences between the OECD world and the developing world, because much of the OECD is located outside of areas where the very worst effects of climate change would be felt.I think we are locating the source of "inaction" in different reasons. Your argument seems to be that no action will be taken because the places most impacted are more or less marginal for capitalism. I think that the reason is due to capitalist competition and that the capitalist ruling classes are taking "action" but they are doing so along national lines and in order to ensure their competitive edge over rivals.


So consider this question: I think it's fair to say Taiwan, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea would all be in serious trouble. But I think it is plausible that in these 3 countries (a "global north" country, a middle income country, and an economic basketcase) the effects of climate change on the class struggle will, I posit, differ dramatically. I would not be surprised if the Taiwanese bourgeoisie could use its considerable wealth to manage the crisis to not immeserite its working class. I suspect the Filipino bourgeosie would ensure that a few key cities where their wealth is concentrated remain more or less functional at the expense of the rural areas, and that existing trends of urbanization and ghettoization are accelerated as climate refugees move into these relative "havens". And finally I would not be surprised if the bourgeoisie of Papua New Guinea that can leave accelerate their emigration and the remaining oversee societal collapse like what we saw in Haiti. I think this gives too much credit to nations acting neutrally based on available resources to help disasters. If that were the case, then the US is rich enough than no one from New Orleans needed to be displaced or loose their homes. But yes, potentially, more wealthy nations could be in a better position either to protect their own elites and infrastructure or to give concessions to regular people impacted.


Really? I think if the projections were that London, Washington DC and New York were as doomed as Nauru, there would be a lot more response from the global north. Don't you? No. Manhattan is pretty vunerable and you'd think having a hurricane there for the first time anyone can remember might do something - but they just sent the military to protect Wall Street after the city was stranded. New Orleans and Florida and parts of Texas are all vulnerable as well - before Katrina, CNN even did a half hour report about how the levees in New Orleans couldn't stand a moderate direct hurricaine. So it's not like they don't know this - they are just incapable of being proactive, and so their response in terms of urban policy has been "Adaptation" - they are just making contingency plans and figuring out how to not loose property values and so on. They can move Wall Street and the White House to Denver.


In fairness, I think the science (at least meteorology) is one thing, the social response is another. The science might not be hyperbole, but the predictions about how people react to it/what the agricultural impacts are/the financial/infrastructural repurcussions, etc... might be. I think it is much harder to predict how a capitalist power like, say, Indonesia would fare if climate change does XYZ rather than predicting whether climate change will do XYZ.I agree, then on top of that, what people within those countries do, how they organize, what they might demand. To me that's all speculative at this point - and something we should be trying to figure out. But I do think that increased climate instability will also cause instability in the system in a number of different ways that will provoke various flash points and so on - potentially in any location. Someplace where shanties are being destroyed by changing weather is obviously "worse" than infrastructure in the US breaking down due to similar phenomena, but it still has the potential to create fights if the subways are all shut down, or if people in urban areas can't get water, etc.

[AnaRchic]

Ultimately the survival and advance of human civilization depends upon a social revolution abolishing capitalism, overthrowing the ruling class, and ushering in revolutionary libertarian socialism. If this does not happen I can only see the collapse of human civilization as we know it. The species will likely survive, but will in all likelyhood revert to a primitive condition; including the extinction of a large percent of our species.

The question as to whether this social revolution will take place depends to a large degree on whether we, the revolutionary left, can effectively come together and become a leading force of ideas and methods in the unfolding and growing struggles of our class.

I think that what is needed now is a new 21st-century revolutionary communist synthesis, internalizing the lessons of the 19th and 20th century, combining the best aspects of marxism and anarchism, developing a scientific critique of modern post-industrial capitalism, and upholding revolutionary struggle pragmatically with a focus on objective conditions and necessities rather than idealism.

Unless we can unite on these grounds we will remain fragmented and ineffective, and though our class will struggle heroically, we may not take the revolutionary struggle all the way to the end. Our enemies are highly organized and efficient; we must be the same way if we hope to effect real change.

The ecological crisis is very real and very severe. We simply don't have time to keep waiting. The time to act is NOW. We need to unite and organize, build bridges between class struggles across borders, spread a scientific critique of modern capitalism, and come together on the principles of workers self-emancipation and the desire for real communism. Building unity among the revolutionary left is the greatest imperative of our time.

[neola]

Lets suppose that we came into real communism. Will there be hundred percent guarantee that climate change will stop or prevent?

[Blake's Baby]

No. How on earth will we be able to clean up all the shit capitalism has left us in one day?

The difference is, that we'd be in a position to start to do something about it.

[Max]

Capitalism as a system is to blame, not individuals who buy mass-produced crap as opposed to green fair-trade zero-carbon ethically-sourced dolphin-friendly community-produced tea or lightbulbs or hats or whatever.


Doing things such as buying organic food, as opposed to food that is grown by using mass amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, actually does make a difference. Cars and industry do make up a large amount of human emissions, but the use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilizer make up over 50 percent of human emissions. If we want to target global warming, we must first start with revolutionizing agriculture by making it sustainable.