Log in

View Full Version : Who Cares About The Environment?:



Johnny Anarcho
4th December 2006, 17:08
If the melting ice caps of Siberia didn’t remind everyone of the impact of global warming, the heat wave that struck the country this summer certainly did. It has been reported that 225 people died in the United States during the 2006 heat wave—and that number is surely understated. Like in most heat waves, those who suffered most were poor with little to no access to air conditioning. More interesting was the average age of those who died: It was unexpectedly low in many areas. But this isn’t new. It is simply the latest in a mounting environmental crisis that is grabbing the attention of all generations.

Evidence of a looming environmental crisis is mounting. We are reaching a defining moment in how we relate to our environment. This was brought home when, on August 29, 2005, the mounting crisis blew right onto our continent, in the form of Hurricane Katrina. It graphically demonstrated the connection between the struggle for environmental stability and struggles for healthcare, fair working conditions, and livable communities, more obvious and more urgent.

You would think that more people would be leaving behind notions that environmental changes will only affect our distant futures, since they are more and more obviously impacting our daily lives right now. But many still see the struggle to preserve and sustain the environment as a secondary issue.

And the “mainstream” environmental movement has depicted the struggle for the environment as more of a charity or an issue affecting some vague “children’s future.” Slogans such as “Save the Planet” don’t instill the urgency and self-interest we have in fighting for sustainable environmental policies. The main enemy of the environment in many Save the Planet campaigns is you, the individual. Thus, the solution to all of our environmental problems is for you, the individual, to do better. Arising from these so-called solutions is the irony of getting individuals to recycle when city officials cannot fund programs to actually collect and re-use the materials; or the implications that one should purchase a hybrid car to be environmentally friendly, though few can actually afford one. It is no wonder that historically oppressed and working class communities have seen the struggle to protect the environment as “hippie, middle-class” notions!

Unfortunately, Al Gore’s recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, made these sentiments painfully worse—providing little for working people to identify with. From the movie, we are led to believe that corporate dominance and the environment are completely reconcilable; that companies would in fact be more profitable if they charitably protected the environment. But if this were really true, companies would have long ago implemented environmentally safe policies in their own self-interest. Few corporations have ever needed our help in determining how to squeeze out every penny of profit possible.

Mother Earth is not asking for a handout—She’s giving us our fair warning! David Shariatmadari points out in “The Hard Green Revolution”, “We tend to take it for granted that we are more powerful than nature.” But in the end Mother Earth will be just fine. It’s the human race that we have to be worried about.
If capitalism is allowed to continue to devastate the environment in its drive to maximize profit rates—the end result will be disastrous, regardless of how many cans individuals recycle.
Sam Webb notes in his Reflections on Socialism, “The earth is sending distress signals to its human inhabitants, which will become more pronounced as long as the social relations of production are not in harmony with the ecological relations of consumption; as long as the reproduction of capital dominates the reproduction of nature.” This sentiment highlights the collective, social nature of the solution to environmental problems.

In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme, Karl Marx noted, “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values…as is labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a natural force, human labour power.” The socialist approach to the environment highlights the common link between the exploitation of a worker for her/his labor and the exploitation of natural resources; the capitalist. Thus, the working-class solution to our modern woes targets leaders in transnational capital as the main enemy to a sustainable environment, not simply the individual.

It is plain to see that environmental issues are more than secondary demands to take up separately from other arenas of struggle. These issues need to be addressed as a necessary component of the fight for working people. Their implications deeply impact us today, and as with most societal flaws, have an even deeper impact on working class communities—especially youth. Although all individuals should do what we can to protect the environment, we must collectively address the problems capitalism creates by better integrating them into other struggles we face.

Of course, we can’t sit on our thumbs waiting for the revolution to come. The time to fight for collective, social environmental solutions is now. They are not solely the domain of those who wear tie-dyed shirts and Birkenstocks. The old notion that there were workers on one side and environmentalists on the other no longer holds sway—actually, it’s always been wrong. There is no contradiction between jobs or the environment. Saving the environment—and thus, saving ourselves—will create jobs.

In 2004, the Communist Party USA outlined an environmental program that proposes such solutions, including some that would directly engage and impact the lives of youth in the United States. In addition to calling for government aid to “communities that have been abused with toxic dumps and other super-pollution, with these communities participating in the planning and in the jobs,” the program calls for the creation of a Civilian Conservation Corps for young people, “similar to the CCC of the 1930s, to train and employ youth in the care and preservation of state and federal forests, wetlands, shorelines, waters, and national, state, and city parks.” The program calls for the passing of a national Right to Know bill which would require companies to “inform workers of the hazardous products and materials to which their jobs expose them.” It calls for a conversion plan to maintain jobs and assist in the shift to environmentally sound policies. It proposes all of this and more. These practical, concrete policies, taken up by a broader section of the public, could aid in establishing not only an environmentally sustainable society, but one that also provides for the basic needs of youth and our communities; namely jobs, schools, recreation, and more!

If you still haven’t figured out how to bring more of your friends to the cause, there are certain characteristics of the environmental struggle that give it an advantage in mobilizing large numbers of people, including working class communities and youth.

First, the destruction of the environment cuts across all lines including class, race, gender and age. The 2006 heat wave alone demonstrated this. With a clear understanding of the common cause of environmental problems—the transnational corporations, if you forgot already—the struggle for a sustainable environment has the potential to engage millions. And unlike other areas of the struggle for social and economic justice, right-wing propaganda is unable to fool the population by suggesting that the Earth should simply work harder and pull itself up by the boot-straps.

The difficulty of the corporate classes to distract the public away from the true causes of environmental problems has put them on the defensive, cornering many companies into proclaiming themselves as environmentally friendly. British Petroleum (BP), known for its new “green” appearance and “environmentally sound policies” had its Texas Refinery cited as the worst polluter in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency . Even Wal-Mart, which continues to pollute many a river and stream while developing on scarce farmland and tribal burial grounds, claims to be “taking the lead on the environment” in an April 2006 statement.

In doing this these transnational corporations are attempting to convince the public that they have it under control; that they’re doing everything possible to save the environment and we need not worry. Recognizing the potential growth in sheer numbers the environmental struggle could bring to the broader movement to curtail corporate rule, these companies hope to dull a powerful mass consciousness. But their success is waning.

The shift from environmentalism as an issue only for well-to-do white environmentalists to one affecting a much larger body of historically underrepresented and working class communities was vividly apparent at the 2006 Take Back America Conference where progressive Democrats highlighted the Apollo Alliance, a collection of environmental groups and labor unions focused on establishing energy independence, new technology, alternative fuels and the green-collar jobs required to create and maintain them.

More people recognize that environmental issues are intricately connected to the broader goals of the working class, and youth have a role to play. We must note that the environmental struggle is not just a fight for our future, but a fight for our present lives. We must assist others in drawing the connections between environmental devastation and capitalism, highlighting which communities experience the most harm, be it from a toxic waste dump or a hurricane.

Our fight isn’t to charitably protect our sensitive planet—humanity would surely die off before the planet “dies”—but to fight for human survival.

Dynamic Magazine (http://http://yclusa.org/article/articleview/1774/1/320/)

Intellectual47
4th December 2006, 17:16
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the USSR infamous for it's enviormental policies.

Your arguements are also flawed. to see why please visit here (http://Junkscience.com). Just see the global warming section.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 17:34
Unlike 'Intellectual47', I agree. But also unknown long term effects of chemicals, and waste build-up are also major issues. Capitalism, creates for the sole purpose of profit, a nothing will stop its volition. A profit tax, or total shift in policy, are the only ways out. But no one will care until it is too late, unfortunately.

Tungsten
4th December 2006, 18:07
Wozzeck

A profit tax, or total shift in policy, are the only ways out.
Shift in policy perhaps, but how will taxing profit (don't we already have profit/windfall taxes?) change environmental policy? Profit = Pollution is a bit of a facile evaluation.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 18:15
Profit tax would help in solving energy problems, it would also create a higher degree of thought into what companies produced, anaylising the worth of the product. Things would be become more 'functional' as opposed to 'material', probably more 'durable' as well.

Intellectual47
4th December 2006, 18:17
Since the enviorenment is not broken, why should we tax the rich to fix it? It would appear you just hate the rich because.....they're rich, what other reason do you need.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 18:21
If I wanted fat pockets then I would be a hypocrite. Keep in mind you know nothing about me! I was speaking of taxing companies.

Intellectual47
4th December 2006, 18:22
RICH companies. That's what a profit tax is. And Rich companies are led by Rich people last I checked.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 18:27
Richness is relative! Problems of capital are evident all over the Globe. If a country is poor, it will remain so until it was figured out how do get something in return for charity? You scratch my back, I scratch yours mentality? If you do not see something wrong with the ways of this world. GOD HELP YOU!

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 18:29
I would like to see you having acheived what you have today, with a crack addicted mother, in the projects, on the 'other side of the train tracks!'. LOL!

colonelguppy
4th December 2006, 18:44
remember when all the global warmign people claimed that katrina would be just the tip of the iceberg, and then we had a near record low hurricane season?

global warming is basically supported by sporatic statisitcs with little correlation to suggest anyhting significant, and even if it is happening, i find it laughable that people think we can have an impact on it, something like 6% of CO2 emissions are actually caused by us.

Tungsten
4th December 2006, 19:02
Wozzeck

You scratch my back, I scratch yours mentality?
And what the hell is wrong with that? Would you prefer it if all the scratching was done by one party or not at all?

I would like to see you having acheived what you have today, with a crack addicted mother, in the projects, on the 'other side of the train tracks!'. LOL!
Fantasy projections rarely add up to anything meaningful. People take crack because they're stupid. What's the point of taking an addictive substance that's going to fuck you up? I don't buy the poncy-arsed determinist argument that they can't help it. We're free minded creatures. We can help it.

Living on the other side of the train tracks isn't an excuse for acting stupidly. It wasn't a hundred years ago, it isn't now.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 19:05
I'm not trying to make it sound, all maudlin. But understand, if you are going to an inner-city school, what would happen if you actually tried to achieve anything. You'd end up socially crucified! What if you had nothing anyways, you'd probably wish to waste the day away on crack too!

Intellectual47
4th December 2006, 20:39
Many people who have gone to an inner-city school have gone on to do great things. Like the example In "Freakanomics". You are making stereotypes about poverty and society, Wozzeck! Perhaps you should get out more.

Wozzeck
4th December 2006, 22:09
It's a matter of simple statistics! :angry:

bcbm
4th December 2006, 22:35
I think the idea that human beings will have any long-term meaningful effect on the environment is laughably absurd. Are we warming the planet? Maybe. Is that a bad thing? Depends on your perspective. Warmer conditions are better for agriculture and besides, snow sucks.

Johnny Anarcho
5th December 2006, 15:59
Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 04, 2006 10:35 pm
I think the idea that human beings will have any long-term meaningful effect on the environment is laughably absurd. Are we warming the planet? Maybe. Is that a bad thing? Depends on your perspective. Warmer conditions are better for agriculture and besides, snow sucks.
Ever seen the Day After Tommorow, thats all the reason needed to protect the environment.

Intellectual47
5th December 2006, 16:48
The Day after Tommorow was a FICTION movie based on unscientific facts. The movie is horrible inaccurate and sensationalized to fool idiots like you.

bcbm
5th December 2006, 17:30
Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+December 05, 2006 09:59 am--> (Johnny Anarcho @ December 05, 2006 09:59 am)
black banner black [email protected] 04, 2006 10:35 pm
I think the idea that human beings will have any long-term meaningful effect on the environment is laughably absurd. Are we warming the planet? Maybe. Is that a bad thing? Depends on your perspective. Warmer conditions are better for agriculture and besides, snow sucks.
Ever seen the Day After Tommorow, thats all the reason needed to protect the environment. [/b]
The Earth will have many, many massive shifts in climate whatever the fuck we do.

cb9's_unity
5th December 2006, 21:46
I suggest An Inconvenient Truth no matter what you think of Al Gore. If one single thing that the movie says is true then were screwed. People use the argument that the earth is too big or that the earth has natural cycles but thats largly bullshit. C02 emissions do go up and down in cycles but the level of c02 in the air now is off the charts and has no signs of going down. You should also take a look at the pictures of the glacier fields that are melting, one decade they are there and in a few more they are completly gone. Ice chunks the size of Rhode Island are falling off ice shelves.

ComradeR
6th December 2006, 12:48
Have any of you heard of "global dimming"? The effect created by the heavy pollutants produced by burning coal, oil, and gas which reflects sunlight and masks global warming. If you havent then i seriously suggest you do some research into it before you say global warming dosent exist.

Oh and the thing about hurricanes was not that it would cause more, but that it would make them more powerful.

bcbm
6th December 2006, 16:17
People use the argument that the earth is too big or that the earth has natural cycles but thats largly bullshit.

That the earth has fluctuating temperatures and climatic cycles is largely bullshit? Look up "Medieval Warm Period," "Little Ice Age," or "abrupt climate shifts." Or just open a book. There are certainly cycles.


C02 emissions do go up and down in cycles but the level of c02 in the air now is off the charts and has no signs of going down. You should also take a look at the pictures of the glacier fields that are melting, one decade they are there and in a few more they are completly gone. Ice chunks the size of Rhode Island are falling off ice shelves.

Sometimes the Earth gets warmer- much warmer. That doesn't mean humans are responsible, this is just the first time we've actually been smart enough to notice it as it was happening. Last I checked, the proof that humans are causing the shift in temperature was pretty tenous, at best. And either way, we're in an ice age right now so the Earth's temperature really has nowhere to go but up- enjoy the ride.


If you havent then i seriously suggest you do some research into it before you say global warming dosent exist.

No one said it wasn't happening, just that humans may not be the cause.



Do you think that the scientist who say its happening are making it up? Do you have a degree?

:rolleyes:

Johnny Anarcho
6th December 2006, 16:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:48 pm
The Day after Tommorow was a FICTION movie based on unscientific facts. The movie is horrible inaccurate and sensationalized to fool idiots like you.
Scientists have said that such a thing could transition over time.