climate change demo in london

[Zurdito]

.

[Vanguard1917]

we need to make more of an effort to turn these marches red.

We need to hold counter-demonstrations demanding rapid, large-scale industrial development worldwide. In other words, we need to confront the environmentalists - not march with them or try to turn their reactionary causes 'red'.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:32 pm

We need to hold counter-demonstrations demanding rapid, large-scale industrial development worldwide.
On ward towards capitalist neo-liberal expansion&#33; <_<

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+December 09, 2007 11:53 pm--> (Pawn Power @ December 09, 2007 11:53 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 06:32 pm

We need to hold counter-demonstrations demanding rapid, large-scale industrial development worldwide.
On ward towards capitalist neo-liberal expansion&#33; <_< [/b]
No. Capitalism is unable to provide the kind of rapid mass industrial development that the world needs: capitalism restrains the development of the productive forces of society. That&#39;s the key reason why we oppose it.

By opposing industrial development, environmentalists effectively excuse capitalism&#39;s number one defect. Therefore, they are a conservative force in society who need to be resisted.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:32 pm

we need to make more of an effort to turn these marches red.

We need to hold counter-demonstrations demanding rapid, large-scale industrial development worldwide. In other words, we need to confront the environmentalists - not march with them or try to turn their reactionary causes &#39;red&#39;.
capitalists are using up the planets scarce resources for theiir own benefit, causing ecological damage which makes the poorest pay the price. they invest much more in extracting profitability out of existing energy supplies than in investing in new technology. As communists we oppose that and demand a sustainable economy which takes into account the external effects of production, i.e. which doesn&#39;t pollute people&#39;s living space (which obviously hits the poor hardest. Therefore we have every reason to be on demonstrations against the environmental damage caused by capitalism, and we have every argument to argue with people who share that concern, some of whom may be on a leftist trajectory: for example I sold a huge amount of pamphlets about socialism on the march. therefore it was worth going: there were people there open to our message.

[Vanguard1917]

Therefore we have every reason to be on demonstrations against the environmental damage caused by capitalism, and we have every argument to argue with people who share that concern, some of whom may be on a leftist trajectory: for example I sold a huge amount of pamphlets about socialism on the march. therefore it was worth going: there were people there open to our message.

Environmentalists oppose &#39;capitalism&#39; because they believe that capitalism gives way to too much economic progress. Marxists oppose capitalism for the opposite reasons.

I have nothing whatsoever in common with the environmental movement. I support biotechnology; i support DDT; i support nuclear power; i support medical testing on animals; i support airport expansions; i support building expansions; and, overall, i feel that every single person in the world should - at the bare minimum - have access to the living standards which many of us take for granted in the West.

Marxists are the polar opposites of environmentalists.

[Zurdito]

Environmentalists oppose &#39;capitalism&#39; because they believe that capitalism gives way to too much economic progress. Marxists oppose capitalism for the opposite reasons.

those marches still attract people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and looking for a solution...and a number of them are open to a socialist message, which is why my group had huge success selling our communist pamphlets.

if the left had been there in more force, we could have done more to politicise these people. are you saying now you will walk away from opportunities for building the movement just because the people you are recruiting are not currently marxists?

you can say they are diametrically opposed to marxism - but so what, so are many national liberation movements, but we still go to them when they rise up in anger against the effects of capitalism, and then try to convert them to our cause.


I have nothing whatsoever in common with the environmental movement. I support biotechnology; i support DDT; i support nuclear power; i support medical testing on animals; i support airport expansions; i support building expansions; and, overall, i feel that every single person in the world should - at the bare minimum - have access to the living standards which many of us take for granted in the West.

I agree with you. I want us to have this argument with the environmental movement.

[Vanguard1917]

those marches still attract people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and looking for a solution...and a number of them are open to a socialist message, which is why my group had huge success selling our communist pamphlets.

if the left had been there in more force, we could have done more to politicise these people. are you saying now you will walk away from opportunities for building the movement just because the people you are recruiting are not currently marxists?

You should challenge their reactionary ideas and win them over to the Marxist perspective (which will be quite a challenge when confronted by any mildly hardened eco-worrier), not tail their reactionary movement.


you can say they are diametrically opposed to marxism - but so what, so are many national liberation movements, but we still go to them when they rise up in anger against the effects of capitalism, and then try to convert them to our cause.

No, you can&#39;t compare the environmental movement with national liberation movements. The latter play a progressive role by mobilising the masses against imperialism.

Environmentalism is a conservative force in capitalist societies. It&#39;s mainly a movement of the Western middle class and the super-rich, who hold the masses in contempt. This movement doesn&#39;t want to change the status quo. In fact, it wants to conserve the status quo. It blames capitalism for having given way to too much progress: too much industrialisation and urbanisation. In other words, it attacks the features of capitalism which are actually historically progressive. It&#39;s therefore a reactionary &#39;attack&#39; on capitalism - with much more in common with the &#39;anti-capitalism&#39; of sections of the right, who also complain that capitalism is destroying idyllic rural communities and traditional ways of life.

[Forward Union]

V1917, you&#39;re setting up a strawman. Not everyone on that march would agree with the things you claim they would.

Climate change highlights a defect of capitalism, a lack of concern for things that do not effect profits. In this instance the environment - a problem that can never be fixed by capitalism. We can highlight this and turn the green movement into a progressive, revolutionary one.

I sympathise with what you&#39;re saying. My only concern, is that if the entire world industrialised to the level of Europe, using the same technology, if everyone had a car and every town, a heathrow. We&#39;d all be dead. Alternative forms of technology must be developed, to allow the safe and democratic development of the LEDCs. With the exception of an unusual fringe of Exxon funded pseudo-scientists, the disasterous effects of human industry on the environment is considered fact.

We must base our ideas, on such things.

There are numerous tendancies within the movement that are either liberal, conservative, or even fascist. But none are representative of the whole thing.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:18 pm
No, you can&#39;t compare the environmental movement with national liberation movements. The latter play a progressive role by mobilising the masses against imperialism.

Environmentalism is a conservative force in capitalist societies. It&#39;s mainly a movement of the Western middle class and the super-rich, who hold the masses in contempt. This movement doesn&#39;t want to change the status quo. In fact, it wants to conserve the status quo. It blames capitalism for having given way to too much progress: too much industrialisation and urbanisation. In other words, it attacks the features of capitalism which are actually historically progressive. It&#39;s therefore a reactionary &#39;attack&#39; on capitalism - with much more in common with the &#39;anti-capitalism&#39; of sections of the right, who also complain that capitalism is destroying idyllic rural communities and traditional ways of life.
Some national resistance movements employ the backwards looking, idealised vision of communities destroyed by capitalism which you refer to, for example many within the Irish or Basque resistances. They talk about mediaeval racially pure kingdoms and the need to resurrect hundred years-dead languages. however they also represent a general consciousness of being screwed by the borugeoisie.

Environmentalism is comparable. You cannot claim it is more conservative than capitalism, because capitalism is the dominant force, the ruling class, and even petty-brougeois intellectuals such as environmentalists are opressed by it, therefore when they protest and campaign it is a case of vague, populist, anti-corporate consciousness developing. You cannot place it on a par with capitalism because those in the movement are not the ruling class.

Also Marx&#39;s doctrine of reactionary anti-capitalism which you seem to be guided by was referring to a time when there were still pre-capitalist structures left to preserve, and when capitalism still actively needed to be supported and established in many parts of the world by marxists. However that is not the case today, those in the green movement do not constitue a conservative class interest in the way that pre-capitalist aristocrats or small-holders did in Marx&#39;s time.

I feel that your attitude to the greens is symptomatic of a wider sectarianism by marxists towards the anti-capitalist movement, and it is destructive, as these are the buddings of a class consciousness - "we the people" being screwed by the capitalists drive for profit. As Marxists we must unify that with the broader working class struggle. Many within the movement may resist and be unwinnable, ut there is a signifcant number there to be won over.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:00 pm
Some national resistance movements employ the backwards looking, idealised vision of communities destroyed by capitalism which you refer to, for example many within the Irish or Basque resistances. They talk about mediaeval racially pure kingdoms and the need to resurrect hundred years-dead languages.
Yes, and if those were the dominant sentiments which guided these movements, they would not be progressive. What made national liberation movements in places like Ireland, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa (i would not place Basque separatists in this category) progressive was their mobilisation of the masses against imperialism and for self-determination. These movements were (and, where they still exist, still are) resisting the central reactionary feauture of the imperialist epoch: its adverse effects on economic development. Therefore, it is not suprising that central to the aims of many national liberation movements was greater industrialisation and urbanisation.

The modern environmental movement (which is essentially a Western movement of the middle classes and the super-rich) belongs no where near this anti-imperialist tradition.


Environmentalism is comparable. You cannot claim it is more conservative than capitalism, because capitalism is the dominant force, the ruling class, and even petty-brougeois intellectuals such as environmentalists are opressed by it, therefore when they protest and campaign it is a case of vague, populist, anti-corporate consciousness developing. You cannot place it on a par with capitalism because those in the movement are not the ruling class.

Capitalism is not an ideology - it&#39;s a mode of production and a historical epoch.

Environmentalism is a bourgeois ideology with its base in the middle classes.


Also Marx&#39;s doctrine of reactionary anti-capitalism which you seem to be guided by was referring to a time when there were still pre-capitalist structures left to preserve, and when capitalism still actively needed to be supported and established in many parts of the world by marxists. However that is not the case today, those in the green movement do not constitue a conservative class interest in the way that pre-capitalist aristocrats or small-holders did in Marx&#39;s time.

Western environmentalists oppose industrialisation and urbanisation worldwide. They are explicitly against progress (indeed, they don&#39;t even accept our definition of progress). They campaign against progress. As such, they are one of the most reactionary forces that exist in Western societies.

Their movements should not be joined or tailed, but smashed.

[Andy Bowden]

Environmentalism is a bourgeois ideology with its base in the middle classes.

The forces dedicated to attacking the theory of climate change - who, by the way stand against just about every single scientific institution in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) - are universally right-wing and reactionary.

They find their political voice in the Republican Party, figures like Jeremy Clarkson, Ann Coulter, Melanie Phillips and "reports" in the Daily Mail. Theres literally zero left voices or organisations backing them.

In contrast while the environmental movement does have right-wing strains, like the German Greens who backed the bombing of Serbia, it also has a left-wing; Some Greens in the UK for example who have raised progressive demands about a citizens wage - that is a minimum base level of income for all in society, with opportunity through work to increase it.

There are also right wing strains in the Trade Union and feminist movements. Of course this doesn&#39;t stop Socialists from intervening in those. And how you determine whether Socialists should intervene in the environmental movement is dependent on how you view it, as totally reactionary, or raising an important demand that will affect the working class internationally - which is dependent on how you analyse the facts.

If you believe every scientific institution on earth is engaged in a conspiracy to create a mythical ragnarok, and that middle-class writers like Geoge Monbiot etc have more political power than institutions like Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP managing, quite literally, the lifeblood of capitalism then yes you are probably going to object to it.

If your a materialist however then your more likely to accept the science, over what is a claim that small conspiratorial groups run the world; independent of massive class forces and the interests of capital - most notably the oil industry. Its a popular view on the right - get rid of the "wrong people" ie the Greenies and Britain can expand again.

And accepting the science means accepting the massive devastation that will be wrought on the fight for social progress, against poverty - and for Socialism - that climate change can cause.

The solution to that is a planned economy run democratically to defend and raise living standards of the worlds workers, while stopping the destruction of a capitalism gone mad*

*Given Marx was writing his political theories over a 100 years ago theres no way he could have known the role the industrial revolution and capitalist development would play in climate change. However in areas where he did know of ecological damage done by capitalism, here was his take on it,


"Capitalist production ... disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e. it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the fertility of the soil.... All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress towards ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertility.... Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the worker."

Karl Marx, Capital (I.637-638).

[Vanguard1917]

History shows us that the better developed we are economically, the better equipped we are to deal with environmental threats - including changes in climate. That&#39;s why industrially advanced societies are less vulnerable to natural disasters - and why economically backward societies are especially vulnerable. The solution to any climate change problem isn&#39;t to cut-back on development like the environmentalists want, but to massively increase development worldwide.

And there are a number of senior scientists who criticise the alarmist claims of mainstream environmentalists. These scientists are compared to Holocaust-deniers and debate is effectively shut down.

But this is not really a question of scientific opinion - it&#39;s a question of political programme. The environmental movement is reactionary because it&#39;s against - amongst other progressive developments - industrialisation and urbanisation. They use &#39;science&#39; as means to provide backing to their reactionary politics. When the science doesn&#39;t suit them, they condemn it or simply say &#39;so what?&#39;

As to the social base of the green movement: environmentalism gains the bulk of its support from the middle class and the super-rich (including people like showbiz personalities and celebrities). All sorts of capitalists fund environmental groups. Many also lead environmental organisations. For example, Zac Goldsmith (the Tory son of billionaire businessman Sir James Goldsmith) is a leading environmentalist and editor of the Ecologist magazine. One of the former leaders of Greenpeace was the aristocrat Lord Meltchett. One of the leading supporters of the &#39;Live Earth&#39; event earlier this year was David Mayer de Rothschild, member of the famous Rothschild banking family and author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook.

Overall, green politics gets the vast majority of its support from the wealthier sections of the world&#39;s richests countries - from the middle class upwards. These are the kinds of individuals lecturing working class people to consume less and telling the developing world that it can&#39;t enjoy Western living standards.


*Given Marx was writing his political theories over a 100 years ago theres no way he could have known the role the industrial revolution and capitalist development would play in climate change. However in areas where he did know of ecological damage done by capitalism, here was his take on it,

Yes, every single &#39;Marxist&#39; opportunist who wants to tail-end the environmental movement brings up this quote from Capital in order to try to paint Marx green. All Marx is saying in that quote is that capitalist agriculture can have long-term negative impact on agricultural fertility.

With advances in intensive agriculture and biotechnology in the 20th century, we have been able to overcome problems in fertility and we are now producing more food output than ever before. And who are the main political opponents of intensive farming and biotechnology today? Environmentalists.

In reality, of course, Marx was an extremely enthusiastic supporter of industrialisation and urbanisation. It is precisely this massive development of society&#39;s productive forces that Marx saw as capitalism&#39;s redeeming feature. In complete opposition to today&#39;s environmentalists who think that capitalism gives way to too much development, Marx opposed capitalism because capitalism restrains the development of humanity&#39;s productive capabilities.

&#39;Hence the great civilizing influence of capital, its production of a stage of society compared with which all earlier stages appear to be merely local progress and idolatory of nature. Nature becomes for the first time simply an object for manking, purely a matter of utility; it ceases to be recognised as a power in its own right; and the theoretical knowledge of its independent laws appears only as a stratagem designed to subdue it to human requirements, whether as the object of consumption or as the means of production. Pursuing this tendency, capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life. It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces.&#39;
- Marx, Grundrisse

----

Btw, i&#39;m no big fan of oil. I think we need far greater investment in things like nuclear power and hydroelectric power. Guess who&#39;re amongst the most vocal opponents of such investment?

[Forward Union]

V1917 can you please respond to the claim that industrialisation of the entire world to the current levels of Europe would lead to such catastrophic levels of pollution that we&#39;d all die?

[Zurdito]

But this is not really a question of scientific opinion - it&#39;s a question of political programme.

Then in the same breath:


They use &#39;science&#39; as means to provide backing to their reactionary politics. When the science doesn&#39;t suit them, they condemn it or simply say &#39;so what

...


it doesn&#39;t mean all the science they use is wrong though, does it? so what do you say about the science used by greens which is correct? you dismiss it because greens used it? how is this in the scientific tradition of marxism? the truth is concrete, remember.

[Vanguard1917]

industrialisation of the entire world to the current levels of Europe would lead to such catastrophic levels of pollution that we&#39;d all die

No. Industrially developed societies have environments far better suited to human inhabitation than economically backward societies.


it doesn&#39;t mean all the science they use is wrong though, does it? so what do you say about the science used by greens which is correct?

Like what?

What i&#39;m saying is that the greens use &#39;science&#39; when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn&#39;t.

[Andy Bowden]

The solution to any climate change problem isn&#39;t to cut-back on development like the environmentalists want, but to massively increase development worldwide.

The nature of this development though - an oil driven economy, with the massive CO2 emissions - is causing the climate change problem. Using the same measures to deal with the climate change problem is arse about face, and less efficient and expensive than making the moves to restructure society on a sustainable basis through a Socialist economy.


And there are a number of senior scientists who criticise the alarmist claims of mainstream environmentalists. These scientists are compared to Holocaust-deniers and debate is effectively shut down.

There are indeed a few scientists who claim man-made actions on CO2 emissions are irrelevant to climate change. The difference is the alternating opinion relies on all of the scientific institutions in the world, and not, particularly in the case of Durkins swindle "documentary", sheer fraud masquerading as science.


But this is not really a question of scientific opinion - it&#39;s a question of political programme. The environmental movement is reactionary because it&#39;s against - amongst other progressive developments - industrialisation and urbanisation. They use &#39;science&#39; as means to provide backing to their reactionary politics. When the science doesn&#39;t suit them, they condemn it or simply say &#39;so what?&#39;

Your political programme needs to have a scientific backing - aka materialism - or else it is rudderless. Its exactly what you are accusing the Greens of except buzzwords like "industrialisation" are promoted with the damage associated with it (in a CO2 driven economy) ignored. Political goals are placed above and over science - ideals over materialism, in this case that of massive oil driven industrialisation against any sustainable alternative, with no regard for the material effects this will have on the environment humans live in.


As to the social base of the green movement: environmentalism gains the bulk of its support from the middle class and the super-rich (including people like showbiz personalities and celebrities). All sorts of capitalists fund environmental groups. Many also lead environmental organisations. For example, Zac Goldsmith (the Tory son of billionaire businessman Sir James Goldsmith) is a leading environmentalist and editor of the Ecologist magazine. One of the former leaders of Greenpeace was the aristocrat Lord Meltchett. One of the leading supporters of the &#39;Live Earth&#39; event earlier this year was David Mayer de Rothschild, member of the famous Rothschild banking family and author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook.

Yes environmentalism has a conservative trend, it even has lip-service backing from the tories. Largely because theres now such a universal consensus from scientists that its happening, it is something capital has to recognise, and because some capitalists recognise that massive and destructive climate change could have a disastrous effects on their profits.

As I said before the social base of people opposed to the environmental movement consists of Daily Mail hacks and Jeremy-Clarkson type middle classes, who want to drive an SUV without any hindrance etc.

Theres nothing seriously approaching a progressive or left wing there.


These are the kinds of individuals lecturing working class people to consume less and telling the developing world that it can&#39;t enjoy Western living standards.

Probably 95% above of all demos, articles, press releases etc from the environmental movement - from the conservative to the socialist wing - attacks western governments and corporations as the main cause of climate change. Them lecturing the developing world is something that some individuals may do, but it does not define the character of the movement - which never raises it as one of their aims or demands.

And those that do lecture the developing world on such a basis are wrong - development can and will occur on a sustainable basis when the fetters of capitalism are removed. Take Cuba for example, declared the worlds only country that does not contribute to climate change, organised on a Socialist and sustainable basis.


. All Marx is saying in that quote is that capitalist agriculture can have long-term negative impact on agricultural fertility.

And he would have made the same criticisms of how capitalist co2 driven economic growth was having a negative impact on the worlds climate, with the effects this would have on the poor etc.


With advances in intensive agriculture and biotechnology in the 20th century, we have been able to overcome problems in fertility and we are now producing more food output than ever before. And who are the main political opponents of intensive farming and biotechnology today? Environmentalists

Given Marxs recognition and critique of the effect capitalist agriculture had on soil fertility, its almost certain he would also have referenced the effect industrial agriculture - driven by oil (finite and running out), monoculture based (suceptible to pests) and its effect on soil salinity in the long run - has on soil.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 11, 2007 05:14 pm

The solution to any climate change problem isn&#39;t to cut-back on development like the environmentalists want, but to massively increase development worldwide.

The nature of this development though - an oil driven economy, with the massive CO2 emissions - is causing the climate change problem. Using the same measures to deal with the climate change problem is arse about face, and less efficient and expensive than making the moves to restructure society on a sustainable basis through a Socialist economy.
I agree that we eventually need to move away from an oil-fueled economy. We need a massive expansion of nuclear energy, which will produce plenty of clean and reliable energy to fuel the massive economic developments that the world requires.

The environmentalists oppose this.


There are indeed a few scientists who claim man-made actions on CO2 emissions are irrelevant to climate change. The difference is the alternating opinion relies on all of the scientific institutions in the world, and not, particularly in the case of Durkins swindle "documentary", sheer fraud masquerading as science.

While there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming, the alarmist claims regularly made by the environmental movement are regularly not supported by scientific opinion.

For example, see http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...gore&#39;s+lies (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71884&hl=al+gore&#39;s+lies)


Political goals are placed above and over science - ideals over materialism, in this case that of massive oil driven industrialisation against any sustainable alternative, with no regard for the material effects this will have on the environment humans live in.

The facts tell us that industrially developed societies have environments far better suited to human inhabitation than industrially underdeveloped societies.

Industrialisation is good for our environment.


Probably 95% above of all demos, articles, press releases etc from the environmental movement - from the conservative to the socialist wing - attacks western governments and corporations as the main cause of climate change. Them lecturing the developing world is something that some individuals may do, but it does not define the character of the movement - which never raises it as one of their aims or demands.

You obviously have not looked into environmental politics very closely. Environmentalists spend a large portion of their time lecturing developing countries about how they can and cannot develop (including &#39;encouraging&#39; them to implement Malthusian population policies) and telling off &#39;1st world consumers&#39; (i.e. working class people) for their greedy lifestyles.


Given Marxs recognition and critique of the effect capitalist agriculture had on soil fertility, its almost certain he would also have referenced the effect industrial agriculture

Unlikely, since Marx was an enhusiatic supporter of industrialised agriculture, and he saw it as a key precondition for communism.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:35 am
No. Industrially developed societies have environments far better suited to human inhabitation than economically backward societies.

Yes, but the waste, in terms of Co2 tonnage and other fuel waste is toxic to the environment as a whole, and detrimentally effects aspects of the earth imperative for our survival, like the gulf stream and the o zone layer.

Even the current amount of waste from industrial nations is fatal. You want to magnify it 1000s of times?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 11, 2007 05:54 pm
Yes, but the waste, in terms of Co2 tonnage and other fuel waste is toxic to the environment as a whole, and detrimentally effects aspects of the earth imperative for our survival, like the gulf stream and the o zone layer.

I want far more investment in cleaner energy like nuclear.

[Vanguard1917]

Even the current amount of waste from industrial nations is fatal.

In what sense?

[Andy Bowden]

I agree that we eventually need to move away from an oil-fueled economy. We need a massive expansion of nuclear energy, which will produce plenty of clean and reliable energy to fuel the massive economic developments that the world requires.

Even when you take away issue of expense and safety, nuclear power is still not a renewable power source. It relies on mined uranium, which is not only a finite power source, but requires mining - and therefore CO2 emmissions - to recover.


While there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming, the alarmist claims regularly made by the environmental movement are regularly not supported by scientific opinion.

For example, see http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...gore&#39;s+lies

Yes, I saw that thread earlier and replied in it.


Most of the errors I can see in Gores film that have been raised are,

* Overestimation (albeit vast) of the increase in tide lines by flooding within the next few years

* False attribution of polar bears dying to climate change

* False attribution of Mt Kilimanjaro&#39;s loss of snow to climate change.

These are sloppy errors which someone with a scientific background probably would have checked. However there is no serious attack on the main thrust of Gores documentary; that climate change is happening, and is caused by CO2 emmisions.

The difference with Durkins film much of his core argument - that there was a correlation between sun flares and global warming - was a deliberate hoax, based on graphs that were deliberately cut off.

Put simply you can still accept the thrust of Gores argument with these error; you cant do that with Durkins, his errors fuck up his whole argument irrevocably.

The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion beleives man is having an effect on climate change, and that the resulting effect on the planets climate will be far more costly and damaging to deal with then than it is to now.


The facts tell us that industrially developed societies have environments far better suited to human inhabitation than industrially underdeveloped societies.

Industrialisation is good for our environment.

The facts tell us CO2 driven industrial development is going to have an immensely negative effect on our own environment - and it will be cheaper to deal to stop that effect now than to use industrialisation to try and manage the crisis.

And even then industrialisation can only go so far - hows it going to deal with water shortages, in Peru or Australia for example?


You obviously have not looked into environmental politics very closely. Environmentalists spend a large portion of their time lecturing developing countries about how they can and cannot develop (including &#39;encouraging&#39; them to implement Malthusian population policies) and telling off &#39;1st world consumers&#39; (i.e. working class people) for their greedy lifestyles.

Which demos, press releases, demands, campaigns launched by environmental movements have ever called for this?


Unlikely, since Marx was an enhusiatic supporter of industrialised agriculture, and he saw it as a key precondition for communism

And he also warned of the danger that unrestrained capitalism, in a desire for short term profit, would have on the long term sustainability of the soil. Something that is as relevant today with issues of industrial farmings use of disease-prone monocultures, and the effect industrial farming has on soil salinity etc.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 12, 2007 03:47 pm

I agree that we eventually need to move away from an oil-fueled economy. We need a massive expansion of nuclear energy, which will produce plenty of clean and reliable energy to fuel the massive economic developments that the world requires.

Even when you take away issue of expense and safety, nuclear power is still not a renewable power source. It relies on mined uranium, which is not only a finite power source, but requires mining - and therefore CO2 emmissions - to recover.
So if nuclear is not the solution, what is? Two billion people (almost a 3rd of humanity) have no access to electricity. The world needs urgent economic development. If developing countries cannot use coal, oil, or nuclear, how are they meant to fuel the massive industrial developments that they require?



You obviously have not looked into environmental politics very closely. Environmentalists spend a large portion of their time lecturing developing countries about how they can and cannot develop (including &#39;encouraging&#39; them to implement Malthusian population policies) and telling off &#39;1st world consumers&#39; (i.e. working class people) for their greedy lifestyles.
Which demos, press releases, demands, campaigns launched by environmental movements have ever called for this?

Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement argue that &#39;first world consumers&#39; are consuming too much? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement openly say that if the developing world was to enjoy Western living standards, we would need &#39;ten planets [or insert whatever number they arbitarily decide to come up with on the day]&#39;? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement tell developing countries to invest in more wind and solar power, and use less of their coal and oil? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement argue that Malthusian population controls are needed for &#39;sustainable development&#39; in the developing world?


The facts tell us CO2 driven industrial development is going to have an immensely negative effect on our own environment - and it will be cheaper to deal to stop that effect now than to use industrialisation to try and manage the crisis.

The facts tell us that global temperatures are likely to continue increasing in coming decades, and that this can pose some problems.

But the facts also tell us that there is a more urgent problem which affects the world&#39;s people today: that of a lack of economic development - and that economic development not only increases living standards, it also makes us less vulnerable to natural threats, such as changes in climate.

The number one priority for developing countries today is rapid, large-scale economic development. It is the lack of this development which brings misery to the lives of billions of people. Capitalism&#39;s number one defect is that it cannot bring about this development. We should be in rage about this. Instead, environmentalism plays down this defect, and serves to excuse capitalism&#39;s most serious crime.

[Andy Bowden]

So if nuclear is not the solution, what is? Two billion people (almost a 3rd of humanity) have no access to electricity. The world needs urgent economic development. If developing countries cannot use coal, oil, or nuclear, how are they meant to fuel the massive industrial developments that they require?

You seem to propose its the environmental movement, or Socialists who are against nuclear power, fossil fuels, are limiting massive industrial developments but the fact are the resources themselves will.

Nuclear is not renewable - it requires uranium, which is a finite resource. Not only is it finite, but it is not green either as there are CO2 emissions entailed in the mining of it, which will obviously increase as uranium becomes more scarce.

So once you rule out oil and uranium for scarcity reasons, and coal for climate change reasons, you have to find other solutions. While you&#39;ve attacked solar power and other renewables as being incapable of providing energy needed for industrialisation, this seems to ignore the thrust of your argument - that capitalism cannot drive forward industrialisation.

This is true in the case of renewables where investment into their technology is a fraction of the investements into fossil fuels etc.

To deal with industrialisation and electrifying the third world Socialists would cut down on wasteful use of energy (ensure all houses are insulated etc), and expand the investment and construction of renewable energy sources, as part of an internationally organised energy plan; an integrated network of solar panels across the equator for example.

I know you mentioned Green opposition to hydroelectric, this is not in principle however but in tactic, as the Scottish Greens at least are in favour of tidal power etc. It might be examples such as the Three Gorges Dam some environmentalists oppose, but if planning was done democratically then these examples of bueracratic enforcement could be avoided.


Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement argue that &#39;first world consumers&#39; are consuming too much? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement openly say that if the developing world was to enjoy Western living standards, we would need &#39;ten planets [or insert whatever number they arbitarily decide to come up with on the day]&#39;? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement tell developing countries to invest in more wind and solar power, and use less of their coal and oil? Doesn&#39;t the environmental movement argue that Malthusian population controls are needed for &#39;sustainable development&#39; in the developing world?

The "environmental movement" is not a homogenous block. They range from those who would describe themselves as Marxists or ecosocialists like the ISG in Britain, to the German Greens who supported the bombing of Serbia.

However as a whole the Green movement focuses most of its fire on western nations and multinationals. The fossil fuels emmitted by third world countries are pretty insignificant in comparison with the US, and even much of Chinas CO2 output is caused by offsetting, with western companies paying for manufacture in China to avoid carbon quotas.

In terms of levels of consumption theres a difference between personal levels of consumption in the west and the aggregrate level. Living standards should be maintained and increased but the wasteful elements of capitalism - unneccessary packaging etc should be phased out.

All houses should be built to be insulated. Unneccessary packaging on goods should be phased out, as should waste on advertising etc. A free public, and expanded transport system would phase out the need for individual cars.

Attacking these wasteful elements of capitalism is what should be done.


The facts tell us that global temperatures are likely to continue increasing in coming decades, and that this can pose some problems.

More than a little bit of an understatement.


But the facts also tell us that there is a more urgent problem which affects the world&#39;s people today: that of a lack of economic development - and that economic development not only increases living standards, it also makes us less vulnerable to natural threats, such as changes in climate.

Climate change poses an urgent problem as well. It might not be today, but Socialists should not be short sighted. In the future it could lead to an increase in natural disasters etc, leading to population movement on a massive scale, as well as shortages in food at a time with an increasing population.

There are things industrialisation can do, but it cant change the weather to improve crop output (and there are limits on what biotech can do there) and in the cases of places like Peru and Australia, it wont solve lack of water and drought.

Looking towards the same CO2 driven process to solve the problems caused by the CO2 driven process is not an answer.

[Vanguard1917]

Nuclear is not renewable - it requires uranium, which is a finite resource. Not only is it finite, but it is not green either as there are CO2 emissions entailed in the mining of it, which will obviously increase as uranium becomes more scarce.

As uranium becomes scarce (and there is plenty of uranium around at the moment), new reactors can be made to use thorium, of which, apparently, there are three times as much in the ground as uranium. Additionally, modern designs mean that nuclear reactors are producing less waste than ever before. With further investment, research and development into nuclear power, we can expect ever more abundant, cleaner and more efficient energy production in the future.


To deal with industrialisation and electrifying the third world Socialists would cut down on wasteful use of energy (ensure all houses are insulated etc), and expand the investment and construction of renewable energy sources, as part of an internationally organised energy plan; an integrated network of solar panels across the equator for example.

Wind turbines and solar panels are expensive and unreliable. The developing world needs reliable and effienct energy now - vast amounts of it - to fuel the massive, large-scale industrial developments that it requires.

If you&#39;re telling developing countries that they should not use oil, coal or nuclear, and that they should make do with &#39;renewable energy&#39;, what you&#39;re effectively telling them is that they should not be allowed to develop. It&#39;s as simple as that.


However as a whole the Green movement focuses most of its fire on western nations and multinationals.

And what do these &#39;criticisms&#39; - when they do take place - revolve around? Telling governments to cut back on development, not invest in things like nuclear power, outlaw GM, outlaw medical testing on animals, raise taxes on air travel, outlaw house-building in rural areas, etc.

In other words, they &#39;focus their fire on&#39; progressive developments.


More than a little bit of an understatement.

Not at all. Increases in temperature will present us with some practical problems, which will need to be dealt with through practical solutions.

Environmentalists&#39; apocalyptic, quasi-religious &#39;the end is nigh&#39; message is not based on facts, but on irrational fear-mongering.


Climate change poses an urgent problem as well.

No where near as urgent as the problem of industrial underdevelopment. Climate change can bring about hypothetical problems in the future. Underdevelopment brings about real problems to billions of people today.


It might not be today, but Socialists should not be short sighted. In the future it could lead to an increase in natural disasters etc, leading to population movement on a massive scale, as well as shortages in food at a time with an increasing population.

Hypothetically, based on speculation.


There are things industrialisation can do, but it cant change the weather to improve crop output

No, but it can make us far less vulnerable to changes in climate. It is precisely those countries in the developing world whose economies are dependent on agriculture that are the most vulnerable to changes in climate. These countries need to industrialise.


(and there are limits on what biotech can do there)

That&#39;s actually quite rich coming from environmentalists, since they oppose it in the first place.

Biotechnology has achieved wonders for agricultural production, helping to make food more abundant than ever before. With greater investment, research and development, there are no limits to what such technology can achieve.


in the cases of places like Peru and Australia, it wont solve lack of water and drought.

Building more desalination plants - which industrial societies can afford to do - can solve any water &#39;shortage&#39;.

[Andy Bowden]

Wind turbines and solar panels are expensive and unreliable.

Again, you have put renewable energy technology in a different bracket from the rest of technology. You assume, correctly, that capitalism holds back the productive forces in many areas of technology, development etc.

But you ignore it for wind power, and solar power, ignoring the lack of investment capitalism has put into these technologies.



As uranium becomes scarce (and there is plenty of uranium around at the moment), new reactors can be made to use thorium, of which, apparently, there are three times as much in the ground as uranium.

Thorium reactors have had even less practical testing than solar, wind etc. They&#39;ve not been tested as a power source. As far as I know, only India is going to use thorium reactors, there doesn&#39;t appear to be any in current operation.


And what do these &#39;criticisms&#39; - when they do take place - revolve around? Telling governments to cut back on development, not invest in things like nuclear power, outlaw GM, outlaw medical testing on animals, raise taxes on air travel, outlaw house-building in rural areas, etc.

In other words, they &#39;focus their fire on&#39; progressive developments.

The anticlimate change demos dont mention animal testing or GMO. Your just lumping strawmen in with each other.

Its primary demands are to reduce the CO2 output of the developed world, invest in renewables, and switch to them. That movement differs from the conservative strands who believe it is we as individuals who can and should change things from our own habits, lifestyle, and those who call for a restructuring of society on the basis of need and against environmental destruction.


Not at all. Increases in temperature will present us with some practical problems, which will need to be dealt with through practical solutions.

Environmentalists&#39; apocalyptic, quasi-religious &#39;the end is nigh&#39; message is not based on facts, but on irrational fear-mongering.

Its not environmentalists - its just about every scientific institution on earth which is raising climate change as a serious problem. By contrast The Daily Mail, Clarkson, etc rely on people like Martin Durkin to sell their cause, with a method that would make Joan Peters blush its so dishonest.


Climate change can bring about hypothetical problems in the future. Underdevelopment brings about real problems to billions of people today.

Theres nothing hypothetical about it. When every scientific institution reaches the same consensus its time to accept materialism over conspiracy theories.

The effects of climate change will make development in the third world massively harder.


Hypothetically, based on speculation.

No based on Scientific evidence, and the scientific method. Something people like Durkin are divorced from with his gerrymandered graphs and


Biotechnology has achieved wonders for agricultural production, helping to make food more abundant than ever before. With greater investment, research and development, there are no limits to what such technology can achieve.

No limits? There are limits to everything. Saying something is limitless is a very anti-materialist perspective. Is there any limit to how much energy I can obtain from a lump of coal? Could I power a whole city from it?

Is there limits to solar power or wind by comparison?



Building more desalination plants - which industrial societies can afford to do - can solve any water &#39;shortage&#39;.

Australia is an industrialised society and is facing a water shortage. And despite its first world status is finding it difficult to afford expensive desalination plants even on a limited basis - and said desalination plants also have a high energy demand.

Peru amongst other third world countries will have no such luxury if and when they face water shortages.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 13, 2007 09:54 pm

Wind turbines and solar panels are expensive and unreliable.

Again, you have put renewable energy technology in a different bracket from the rest of technology. You assume, correctly, that capitalism holds back the productive forces in many areas of technology, development etc.

But you ignore it for wind power, and solar power, ignoring the lack of investment capitalism has put into these technologies.
Wind and solar power are known to be inefficient and unreliable. Maybe they could be used to supplement energy-supply, but are they going to provide the energy to fuel the massive economic developments that the world needs?


Thorium reactors have had even less practical testing than solar, wind etc. They&#39;ve not been tested as a power source. As far as I know, only India is going to use thorium reactors, there doesn&#39;t appear to be any in current operation.

Lack of practical use does not mean that it isn&#39;t a viable alternative to uranium if the latter should begin running out in the foreseeable future.


The anticlimate change demos dont mention animal testing or GMO. Your just lumping strawmen in with each other.

You said the &#39;Green movement&#39;. The green movement does all the things that i accused them of. And they lead the &#39;anticlimate change demos&#39;.


Its not environmentalists - its just about every scientific institution on earth which is raising climate change as a serious problem.

Yes, but it&#39;s only those associated with the environmentalist movement who portray it in irrational, apocalyptic, fear-mongering terms.

As i said, climate change is a practical problem which will be confronted through practical solutions - not by reigning in development or cutting back.


Theres nothing hypothetical about it. When every scientific institution reaches the same consensus its time to accept materialism over conspiracy theories.

You said:


In the future it [climate change] could lead to an increase in natural disasters etc, leading to population movement on a massive scale, as well as shortages in food at a time with an increasing population.

This is speculation.


The effects of climate change will make development in the third world massively harder.

I don&#39;t think you understand my point. You&#39;re getting things the wrong way around. The effects of climate change on the developing world will be minimalised through economic development. Industrially developed societies are far less vulnerable to natural threats than economically backward agricultural societies.


No limits? There are limits to everything. Saying something is limitless is a very anti-materialist perspective. Is there any limit to how much energy I can obtain from a lump of coal? Could I power a whole city from it?

My point is that environmentalists are in no position to highlight &#39;limits&#39; when they&#39;re the ones trying to stop technological and scientific progress for the sake of &#39;the environment&#39;. Limits are tested through progress, by going forward - they&#39;re not set up in the heads of eco-worriers.


Australia is an industrialised society and is facing a water shortage.

Australia has been suffering droughts for hundreds of years. The effects of such droughts on society have decreased in severity - precisely as Australia has developed into an industrialised society.


And despite its first world status is finding it difficult to afford expensive desalination plants even on a limited basis - and said desalination plants also have a high energy demand

Source?


Peru amongst other third world countries will have no such luxury if and when they face water shortages.

Yes, it doesn&#39;t have this so-called luxury because Peru is a poor, economically backward country.

[YSR]

I would love for one thread about environmental issues to not be hijacked by Vanguard1984 and his fucked up politics.

As a side note

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
Environmentalists oppose &#39;capitalism&#39; because they believe that capitalism gives way to too much economic progress.

I have never, in my life, heard an environmentalist say this. Maybe a handful of hardcore primitivist weirdos, but that&#39;s gotta be it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A person doesn&#39;t have to perfectly and clearly outline their views to hold them.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by YSR+December 13, 2007 11:12 pm--> (YSR @ December 13, 2007 11:12 pm)
Vanguard1984
Environmentalists oppose &#39;capitalism&#39; because they believe that capitalism gives way to too much economic progress.

I have never, in my life, heard an environmentalist say this. [/b]
They say it all the time: that economic development is going too far and that it needs to be restrained.

I believe that economic development has not gone nearly far enough. I believe that those in the developing world should have at the bare minimum the level of economic development that we have in the West.

Environmentalists openly say that this is impossible (&#39;if every Chinese family was to have a washing machine and a fridge, we would need to 10 planets&#33;&#39;, etc, ect...)

CDL:

A person doesn&#39;t have to perfectly and clearly outline their views to hold them.

Indeed. Moreover, it would be utterly foolish to expect clarity from eco-worriers.

[Keyser]

I can sympathise with the general sentiment of Vanguard1917 on the green movement.

There are of course certain environmentalists who are progressive and humanistic, sadly they often get ignored by the wider green movement and the bourgeois media when they cover news and give airtime to the green movement and issues relating to the environment.

This small band of progressive and humanistic environmentalists are more or less concentrated within the scientific community and by virtue of them being in the main scientists, they analyse and develop solutions to the environment based on rational and logical investigation and refrain from making sensationalist, emotive doomsday predictions and then proposing equally emotive and irrational 'solutions' of going back to a pre-industrial 'golden age'.

Animal testing is a perfect example of the divide that exists between the rational and irrational in the environmentalist movement. Animal testing in no way harms or degrades the environment and eco-system which sustains huma life, furthermore the benefits to humans in terms of the medical benefits of animal testing are a given fact. So the rational view is that there is no harm done by testing on animal testing.

However, the irrational and reactionary fringe that opposes it bases their view on the false premise of animals being accorded 'rights' and in the more extreme cases (the ALF being a good example), equating animal life as being as worthy and as equal to human life. They base their view not on a rational analysis on whether animal testing is detrimental to human life and well being, but on dubious bourgeois 'morality' and emotive hype on seeing 'cute' animals being hurt. Simply put, they say it's wrong and fail to provide a logical reason as to why they think that.

A good example of this method of the way in which the anti-animal testing movement thinks being put into practice is their street stall, always without fail they have huge photographs of disected animals and their leaflets are just as gory. They don't take time to provide rational reasons and debate, simply use emotive hype to emotionally blackmail people into guilt, a tactic that I don't find suprising, given the petit-bourgeois/middle class nature of these movements, rarely are workers involved in these groups.