[Peace-discuss] AGW and the Left

[Matt Reichel]

Within the EU, there is a sizable movement on the left opposed to the liberal consensus on the issue of global warming, and the international machinery meant to tackle a possible catastrophe (Kyoto, the various EU treaties, etc . . . ).
This is an important critique that you don't see much in the United States, because there isn't much of an institutional left ( that is to say . . people who are critical of capitalism, and the progressive capacity of the liberal state). Without changing the overarching superstructure of market fetishism and imperialism, can we hope to live in a greener and more just world? Probably not . . . 
Alex would, of course, benefit from sticking to these points without wandering into his anti-scientific silliness.
 
Here is a more principled critique of EU global warming policy as written by my mentor in France, Steve McGiffen:
 
http://www.spectrezine.org/Editorial/environment2.htm
 
 
 
Why the EU's policies on climate change will fail



April 24, 2007 19:01 | by Steve McGiffen 
The recent high profile adoption by the European Union of a position on climate change which envisages drastic cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases over the next quarter century risks, once again, creating the impression that the unelected, unanswerable institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Frankfurt are at least a potential part of the solution to the world's ills. 
They are not.
On the contrary, the EU is very much part of the problem, and must take enormous responsibility for an environmental crisis from which there may, I fear, be no comfortable means of escape. True, in order to to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU has taken a range of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately what it cannot do is evade the logic of the system whose existence it was established to perpetuate, a 'free market economy' which is in reality no such thing.
Far from being 'free' the market is continually rigged in favour of the most powerful concentrations of capital to the detriment not only of working people and the world's poor, but of small enterprises, unorthodox economic formations, and any capitalist foolish enough to put any consideration before that of short-term gain. 
The EU's main measure to combat climate change, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), is based on that same rigged market, and so will achieve nothing. 
Under the ETS, each member state draws up a National Allocation Plan (NAP), assigning greenhouse gas emission allowances to power stations and other plant. 
Not all sectors are covered, but firms in those which are have the choice of using the permits to cover for its emissions, selling what it doesn't need or buying additional permits. 
The idea is to create a 'market' in polluting rights, so that companies will decide 'rationally' on the basis of hard economics whether to keep polluting or cut emissions. 
All other things being equal, they will do what is cheapest. 
Unfortunately, most states have overallocated emission permits to companies, allowing them to continue to pollute at the same or even higher levels than before and maintaining a price for emission credits too low to act as an incentive to cut emissions. 
Worse still, some of the most polluting sectors, including transport, are not included in the scheme. 
The Linking Directive, adopted in summer 2004, plugs the ETS into the global system established at Kyoto. 
Under the so-called "flexible mechanisms" of the Kyoto Protocol, credits for emissions saved through co-operation with countries outside the EU can also be bought and sold under the ETS. 
This will mean that instead of using the ETS for the purpose for which it was intended, companies will buy cheap credits from developing countries, credits based on what are often in reality environmentally damaging projects whose effects on carbon emissions are speculative and, even if positive, offset by other impacts.
The announcement in February that EU environment ministers had agreed in principle to cut greenhouse emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and seek a 30% cut worldwide if matched by other developed nations should be seen in this light. 
To take a further example, the Renewables Directive was introduced in 2001. 
Its aim is to increase the share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the EU to just over 22% by 2010. 
The full implementation of this directive would make a big dent on that 20% target, representing a 6% cut against the 1990 base line. 
Unfortunately, the weakness of national implementation measures means that the EU will not meet the target. 
The latest announced targets are likely to meet the same fate. Other measures are in every case undermined by what one can only conclude is a lack of political will. 
The Cogeneration Directive, for example, aims to save power by encouraging the simultaneous production of electricity and heat, massively increasing efficiency.
Unfortunately, the directive's failure to set quantified targets for each member state has effectively made it into no more than an advisory measure. 
The EU's inability to take effective action is a result of the enormous influence of corporate lobbyists at both national and European level. 
But it is also a result of the fact that the EU's founding treaty, its underlying philosophy and the ideas guiding its key decision-makers share the worldview of those lobbyists and the people they represent. 
This is why no binding legislation has been implemented in the most obvious area of road transport efficiency. 
Instead, we have farcical 'voluntary agreements'. 
Unsurprisingly, though these do include quantifiable targets, the industry will not meet them. The same is true in a host of other sectors. Housing is responsible for 40% of the EU's energy use, yet legislation applies only to buildings larger than 1000m2, around 10% of stock, and fails even to set binding minimum efficiency standards. Even were these measures more effective, however, the EU's broader activities would surely undermine them. 
Transport policy is designed to encourage the building of more roads to facilitate the single internal market and promote growth, so that although there has been an impressive rise in fuel efficiency, this has been more than offset by the increase in road traffic. 
Particularly in the new member states, where private car ownership is growing rapidly and the road sector's share of passenger and freight transport increasing, these developments are accompanied by uncontrolled ribbon development and urban sprawl, all of which mean higher emissions. 
Capitalism will never be capable of curbing its rapacious appetite for growth, or of investing in the kind of technologies which might mitigate the harmful effects of that growth.
Still less will it ever be capable of escaping its own merciless logic and adapting to a society based on cooperation in the pursuit of the satisfaction of real human needs and desires in full respect for the environment, the planet, for everything which lives. 
Steve McGiffen is spectrezine's editor and a former environmental adviser to the European Parliament's United Left Group. This article first appeared in The Morning Star> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:47:42 -0600> To: slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu; galliher at uiuc.edu> From: jbw292002 at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AGW and the Left > CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > > As usual Stuart hits the nail more or less precisely on the head, finding > the balance without veering too far toward one extreme or the other.> > So what's "AGW", for the uninitiated? "Anthropogenic Global > Warming"? It's obviously not Cockburn's initials.> > Cockburn's iconoclasm is most refreshing, of course, as manifested in his > proper placement of quotation marks.> > John Wason> > > > At 05:40 PM 2/26/2008, Stuart Levy wrote:> > >On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:20:41PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:> >> > > I don't know whether Cockburn's on to something or not, but I got my radio> > > partner quite annoyed a few weeks ago when I suggested that the affect> > > behind AGW looks like that behind 911-Truth -- and I like Cockburn's> > > suggestion that in each case it may be a displacement from a largely> > > non-existent Left. --CGE> >> >Cockburn has important points to make. He's absolutely right to point out> >that we're blaming India and China for their up-ramping CO2 emissions while> >ignoring the oceans of it we've already produced.> >> >But he'd make a much stronger case if he made those points without simply> >dismissing the whole IPCC scientific community. Doing that only aids the> >commercial interests who want to do the same so that they can continue > >unhindered> >pursuit of fossil-fuel extraction, fossil-fueled agriculture, etc. businesses,> >and leave existing power relations intact.> >> >I'm glad you bring up the 911<->Global Warming connection you mentioned,> >because I'd like to argue against it. What difference does it make> >if each notion's proponents are right?> >> >In the 9/11 case, it means that our government was complicit in> >a terrorist attack on us. Sure, that would be a bad thing.> >But not much worse than if they just took political advantage of an> >attack (which no one doubts they did) and perhaps hoped that one would > >come along.> >And it's not as if our gov't wasn't already guilty of many terroristic> >attacks on other people. Why not one on us?> >> >But in the Global Warming case, it's liable to mean widespread change of> >habitability of land around the world. Where people can live,> >whether they have water to drink, where food can grow,> >where serious diseases propagate. This is what induces mass> >migrations of desperate people. This kind of change would start> >wars even among peoples with sound political systems, if we could find any.> >(I should think there's a good case to be made that a driving force> >in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, not just access to land,> >but access to water.)> >> >So dismissing sound science which suggests that anthropogenic global > >warming is> >happening, and that our industrial society needs to change to limit its > >effects,> >is more than irresponsible.> >> >> > > Morton K. Brussel wrote:> > >> He continues to go down hill. --mkb> >> >> > >> On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:> > >>> > >>> Friday 22 February 2008> > >>> Intellectual blasphemy> > >>> Alexander Cockburn tells spiked that> > >>> when he dared to question the climate change consensus> > >>> he was met by a tsunami of self-righteous fury.> > >>> Alexander Cockburn> > >>>> > >>> While the world's climate is on a warming trend, there is zero evidence> > >>> that the rise in CO2 levels has anthropogenic origins. For daring to say> > >>> this I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.> > >>>> > >>> In magazine articles and essays I have described in fairly considerable> > >>> detail, with input from the scientist Martin Hertzberg, that you can> > >>> account for the current warming by a number of well-known factors - > > to do> > >>> with the elliptical course of the Earth in its relationship to the sun,> > >>> the axis of the Earth in the current period, and possibly the influence> > >>> of solar flares. There have been similar warming cycles in the past, > > such> > >>> as the medieval warming period, when the warming levels were > > considerably> > >>> higher than they are now.> > >>>> > >>> Yet from left to right, the warming that is occurring today is taken as> > >>> being man-made, and many have made it into the central plank of their> > >>> political campaigns. For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the> > >>> environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy> > >>> about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can> > >>> prevent or turn back the warming cycle.> > >>>> > >>> This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left,> > >>> and the decline of the left's optimistic vision of altering the> > >>> economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has> > >>> bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can> > >>> persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the> > >>> emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social> > >>> and environmental justice.> > >>>> > >>> This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in > > fact it> > >>> already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate> > >>> interests. The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the> > >>> current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear> > >>> regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an> > >>> imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry > > see> > >>> in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover> > >>> from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.> > >>>> > >>> More generally, climate catastrophism is leading to a re-emphasis of the> > >>> powers of the advanced industrial world, through its various trade> > >>> mechanisms, to penalise Third World countries. For example, the Indians> > >>> have just produced an extremely cheap car called the Tata Nano, which> > >>> will enable poorer Indians to get about more easily without having to> > >>> load their entire family on to a bicycle. Greens have already attacked> > >>> the car, and it won't take long for the WTO and the advanced powers to> > >>> start punishing India with a lot of missionary-style nonsense about its> > >>> carbon emissions and so on.> > >>>> > >>> The politics of climate change also has potential impacts on farmers.> > >>> Third World farmers who don't use seed strains or agricultural> > >>> procedures that are sanctioned by the international AG corporations and> > >>> major multilateral institutions and banks controlled by the Western> > >>> powers will be sabotaged by attacks on their "excessive carbon> > >>> footprint". The environmental catastrophism peddled by many who claim> > >>> to be progressive is strengthening the hand of corporate interests over> > >>> ordinary people.> > >>>> > >>> [...]> > >>>> > >>> What is sinister about environmental catastrophism is that it diverts> > >>> attention from hundreds and hundreds of serious environmental concerns> > >>> that can be dealt with - starting, perhaps, with the emission of nitrous> > >>> oxides from power plants. Here, in California, if you drive upstate you> > >>> can see the pollution all up the Central Valley from Los Angeles, a lot> > >>> of it caused, ironically, by the sulphuric acid droplets from catalytic> > >>> converters! The problem is that 20 or 30 years ago, the politicians> > >>> didn't want to take on the power companies, so they fixed their sights> > >>> on penalising motorists who are less able to fight back. Decade after> > >>> decade, power plants have been given a pass on the emissions from their> > >>> smoke stacks while measures to force citizens to change their behaviour> > >>> are brought in.> > >>>> > >>> Emissions from power plants are something that could be dealt with now.> > >>> You don't need to have a world programme called "Kyoto" to fix> > >>> something like that. The Kyoto Accord must be one of the most > > reactionary> > >>> political manifestos in the history of the world; it represents a> > >>> horrible privileging of the advanced industrial powers over developing> > >>> nations.> > >>>> > >>> The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is> > >>> best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to> > >>> public light as a shill for two immense power schemes in the state of> > >>> Tennessee: the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Nuclear> > >>> Laboratory. Gore is not, as he claims, a non-partisan green; he is> > >>> influenced very much by his background. His arguments, many of which are> > >>> based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part> > >>> of a political and corporate outlook.> > >>>> > >>> In today's political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a> > >>> young scientist or professor to step up and say: "This is all> > >>> nonsense." It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming> > >>> consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be> > >>> incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees was to> > >>> question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to> > >>> one side and told: "You're threatening our funding and reputation -> > >>> do you really want to do that?" I don't think we should underestimate> > >>> the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people's> > >>> willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.> > >>>> > >>> One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that > > they> > >>> are ignoring "peer-reviewed science". Yet oftentimes, peer review is> > >>> a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will> > >>> know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the> > >>> unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually> > >>> back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed> > >>> is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain> > >>> papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a > > red> > >>> cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what> > >>> they like and exclude what they don't like. Peer review is frequently a> > >>> way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back> > >>> on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual> > >>> argument.> > >>>> > >>> Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus,> > >>> and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt> > >>> almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One> > >>> individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has > > suggested I> > >>> should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate> > >>> change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical> > >>> outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly> > >>> thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments > > for> > >>> many, many years.> > >>>> > >>> There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had> > >>> transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed> > >>> blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, "Boy, I'm glad I didn't> > >>> live in the 1450s", because I would be out in the main square with a> > >>> pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how> > >>> quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who> > >>> question the consensus.> > >>>> > >>> This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been> > >>> like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the> > >>> summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a> > >>> witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use> > >>> of the word "denier" to label those who question claims about> > >>> anthropogenic climate change. "Climate change denier" is, of course,> > >>> meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to> > >>> demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics> > >>> and intellectual panics become engendered.> > >>>> > >>> In my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear, I explore the link> > >>> between fearmongering and climate catastrophism. For example, alarmism> > >>> about population explosion is being revisited through the climate issue.> > >>> Population alarmism goes back as far as Malthus, of course; and in the> > >>> environmental movement there has always been a very sinister strain of> > >>> Malthusianism. This is particularly the case in the US where there has> > >>> never been as great a socialist challenge as there was in Europe. I> > >>> suspect, however, that even in Europe, what remains of socialism has> > >>> itself turned into a degraded Malthusian outlook. It seems clear to me> > >>> that climate catastrophism represents a new form of the politics of fear.> > >>>> > >>> I think people have had enough of peer-reviewed science and experts> > >>> telling them what they can and cannot think and say about climate > > change.> > >>> Climate catastrophism, the impact it is having on people's lives and on> > >>> debate, can only really be challenged through rigorous open discussion> > >>> and through a "battle of ideas", as the conference I spoke at in> > >>> London last year described it. I hope my book is a salvo in that battle.> > >>>> > >>> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/4624/> > _______________________________________________> Peace-discuss mailing list> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080227/ead6f92c/attachment-0001.htm