Climate Change

Oh yes, just what we need Mr Cook, another meeting with George Monbiot and a righteous march behind righteous banners asking people who've been screwing us all over for years to stop it now because we're asking nicely. "What do we want?" "Something jolly worthy!" "When do we want it?" "Sometime fairly soon when our masters say we can!" No, no, wait. I've got a really good idea, why don't we write to our MPs? That's bound to work.

Public pressure does have an impact on politicians. It is worth doing these things. Although I am cynical about the politicians involved. Knowing that both Michael Meacher and Zac Goldsmith are against climate change is almost enough to have me marching in favour of it. Not quite enough, though.

LOL! We could form a front of convenience buk.... except for the fact that I imagine we'd fall out very quickly afterwards. Mr Cook, I do not practice cynicism, I exercise realism. If we are to overcome the challenges of climate change we must endeavour to change things more fundamentally than any politician is capable of. It matters not one jot if public pressure influences politicians, elected representatives are next to irrelevant & in any event they are much more influenced by pressures very different to those brought about by well-meaning folks taking to the streets with banners. I am very much with you when you suggest that changing one's own life is crucial, but changing society is also a pressing necessity. The two are of course related. I am neither cynical nor frustrated; I am an observer of the phenomena which are the state and capitalism. Understand them and we can come to terms with just how much must be changed, just how long the odds are which we face, and just how urgent it is that we start with honesty. Cringing liberals like Monbiot cannot address the situation honestly because they have no realistic critique of underlying causation, namely hierarchy.

Speaking of which - anyone in the Camden area - we're holding a public meeting on 13th November, 7.30pm, Haverstock School. Local MPs Frank and Glenda will be there and we'll be putting pressure on them to vote for a strong Climate Change Bill when it comes up in the House of Commons in November. www.camdenfoe.blogspot.com "Public pressure does have an impact on politicians." Yep - Friends of the Earth brought about the introduction of the Climate Change Bill after garnering massive public support for their Big Ask campaign. As a result, the UK is the first country to bring in the reduction of carbon emissions as law. Actually, it's still going through the process of becoming law and whether it will be strong enough, right now, is questionable, but law it will be. In the end, though, it's down to each and every individual to get on their bikes and switch the lights off :)

Anyone in the York area - I had a letter from our local MP today in reply to the one I'd sent him about the Climate Change Bill, saying they're hoping to have a public meeting here Nov 30, with Hilary Benn. Only it might have to be changed depending on Hilary's diary. He might have something a bit more important on when it comes to it... Yeah, it's frustrating and maddening and something very fundamental does have to change. But I suppose getting some politicians to some public meetings to shout at them is a small totter in the right direction. Assuming they come.

I believe in taking action, but on the other hand I can see what Krop is coming from. I do think we need to question the fundamental underlying nature of our society. Capitalism (for example) is all about growth. The planet cannot indefinitely sustain growth. Seems like quite a simple equation! In the long term, we need to replace Capitalism with something else - or at least give its foundations a thorough shaking... pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

Pepsoid, I absolutely believe in action; action does not, I am afraid equate to marches, meetings and letter writing. Now before anyone leaps to completely wrong conclusions the kind of direct action I am talking about is positive world-changing, community-building direct action. I draw people's attention to some of the following: permaculture; neighbourhood assemblies; local food links; self-build eco-housing; allotments; appropriate technology; libertarian municipalism; social ecology and so on. Who needs politicians?

'Who needs politicians?' Multinationals and newspapers.

Margharita, Hilary Benn gave a keynote speech at FoE local groups conference in September. He totally squirmed his way around the real issues, eg of including shipping and aviation in the Climate Change Bill, etc. Slick he might've been but he didn't come off very well. If you get him, he needs to be pinned down on a few things. Oh... but he's a politician.

"Now before anyone leaps to completely wrong conclusions the kind of direct action I am talking about is positive world-changing, community-building direct action." Totally agree. Jolly good show. "we must endeavour to change things more fundamentally than any politician is capable of." That's the trouble - too many hypocritical lifestylers and self-important busy bodies...not enough 'realism'. Hey! But the march is worth attending - there's an 'after march party!' WEYHEYYY!! hoo-rah. Everyone stay at home, plant some veg, eat some nuts, read a book and make love...you'll make a bigger difference! Eco or ego? You decide... When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Pepsoid, I absolutely believe in action; action does not, I am afraid equate to marches, meetings and letter writing. Now before anyone leaps to completely wrong conclusions the kind of direct action I am talking about is positive world-changing, community-building direct action. I draw people's attention to some of the following: permaculture; neighbourhood assemblies; local food links; self-build eco-housing; allotments; appropriate technology; libertarian municipalism; social ecology and so on. Who needs politicians? Yes, yes, and once again, yes! :) We need to change the fundamental structures of our society, and not expect our politicians to do it for us... Take the power back! (as an angry young singer of the nineties once said) BTW... you read any of the works of Tom Hodgkinson, Krop? pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

So long as tackling climate change isn't a euphemism for slapping more taxes on the consumer then go ahead, campaign. What irks me is that 'green taxes' instead of being used to promote things like rail travel by giving rail companies bigger subsidies and encouraging them to buy double decker trains... the cash just goes into the general pot. I'm currently learning to drive because I am effectively isolated in London by extortionate rail fares. £100 to Preston I have just been quoted!!! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I shall go and Google him immediately Pepsoid. Thanks! Jude, green taxes are not what I'm talking about at least. For me all tax is theft just as the state which collects it is a social evil. This does not mean that we can go on consuming - or indeed driving to Preston - forever, but taxes are no solution.

I disagree that changing the structures of society is where the solution lies. As somebody who hates walking into a dark room and therefore leaves the lights on, the solution was a scientific one (energy saving lightbulbs). I think if there is any long term solutions they will be due to technological and scientific advances in energy production and industrial practice. I think we should plough as much resource as possible into researching alternative energy and re-processing nuclear waste since nuclear energy production releases the lowest amount of CO2 (comparable levels to wind turbines). I have complete confidence in British nuclear safety but we need to finance nuclear plants in poorer countries where I fear poor standards could have the world suffer another Chernobyl. I guess I do agree with the tenet that global capitalism is a problem insofar as it means the scientific advances that reduce environmental impact remain the preserve of the wealthier nations...until its a tad too late... there's no shortage of money for putting the new sarcophagus on Chernobyl's reactor 4! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"Capitalism (for example) is all about growth. The planet cannot indefinitely sustain growth. Seems like quite a simple equation!" It's a simple equation but like many simple equations, it's based on a flawed premise. Capitalism is all about economic growth but the growth of economies is not intrinsically dependent on the physical consumption of more stuff. Whether or not it's a good thing - I'm not particularly arguing that it is - some of the biggest growth industries in the globalised economy (new media, financial services etc.) don't involve the production of anything at all. The question about whether we can consume ever-increasing quantities of stuff is an important question but it's not the same question as whether we can continue to operate under a growth-based economic system.

nannoo nannoo In wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish, but enivrez-vous! The art is to be absolutely yourself -Charles Baudelaire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmhEMPN7y1I

"Whether or not it's a good thing - I'm not particularly arguing that it is - some of the biggest growth industries in the globalised economy (new media, financial services etc.) don't involve the production of anything at all. The question about whether we can consume ever-increasing quantities of stuff is an important question but it's not the same question as whether we can continue to operate under a growth-based economic system." That is cant, absolute cant. The growth of consumption and economic growth are absolutely interlinked and there is no such thing as economic growth without an ecological footprint... read my lips: no such thing. This argument is humbug Buk! It stinks of New Labour, sounds like it means something but says nothing.

Agreed, Krop... Let's take a company which "produces nothing"... it increases in economic terms, which means it requires more staff to run it - taking on more people means building more offices, buying more computers, company cars, etc, etc, etc... How can any kind of economic growth not lead to an increase in the consumption of resources? pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

And that's not even mentioning the inevitable psychological impact of this central tenet of capitalism that "growth is always good"... We need to change our way of thinking! Think sustaining, think levelling out, think equilibrium rather than constant expansion... pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

"We need to change our way of thinking!" spot on! "...sounds like it means something but says nothing." You'll get used to it. :D In wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish, but enivrez-vous! The art is to be absolutely yourself -Charles Baudelaire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmhEMPN7y1I

Is the green argument a left wing one or a right wing one? Kropotkin and pepsoid, how would you propose that we'd produce computers in your local economy? A result of industrialisation is specialisation. Would each micro-society need to have a full complement of people who could make and build complicated machines or run complicated processes? Or would we do without? Would we be prepared to take a step backward and give up forever many things that we've grown used to? What industries would process and refine the raw materials that would underpin your micro-society? I'm not sure that freedom from taxation is freedom from tyranny. I'm not sure that anyone in my neighbourhood could build a CAT scanner or synthesise some Lithium, so I'm happy to pay money towards ensuring that someone out there can do it for me, because need is a tyranny in itself. As regards climate change: make your government make some laws that make it illegal to do bad stuff. Business will keep doing whatever it likes unless it becomes unlawful to do so. Consumers can only withdraw their consumption, but individual consumption is only part of it. Cheers, Mark

"How can any kind of economic growth not lead to an increase in the consumption of resources?" One example is if childcare is provided by a paid childminder instead of unpaid family member. Or if you pay someone to clean your house rather than doing it yourself. I don't particularly support (or oppose) either of those things but they do increase GDP - which is the primary current method for measuring - and they don't increase consumption. "Let's take a company which "produces nothing"... it increases in economic terms, which means it requires more staff to run it - taking on more people means building more offices, buying more computers, company cars, etc, etc, etc..." Companies may or my not do these things but doing so isn't an essential requirement of economic growth. A reasonable number of people already work from home, that could be increased. Or not. The reality is that a move away from growth based economic system is not currently conceivable. Not least because no one's offering a serious alternative. A reduction in material consumption is conceivable and necessary.

Mark, I'd like to direct you towards, just for a taster you understand: Murray Bookchin 'Post-Scarcity Anarchism'. It is perfectly possible to create a localised economic system which would still deliver high and appropriate technology solutions to our human problems. Of course communities would still need to distribute some scarce resources in order to make-up regional disparities; what I would argue for is a predisposition towards local or bioregional solutions & production, not some kind of fundamentalist interdiction on all movement of materials and technology. Right now we have the exact opposite and the consequences for people and the planet are nothing short of catastrophic. As for whether the green argument is left or right I don't think either is a particularly useful label. There are plenty of people of the left who are authoritarian bastards, and plenty of people of the right who are naturally inclined towards libertarian solutions and might be won over to radically democratic solutions to social and ecological crises more easily than social democrats for example. The historic failure of the left is a failure of imagination and faith in the potential of people to be free. The highly stylised vocabulary of the Cold War is obsolete. It would be quite wrong to assume that communities are incapable of organising for all of their needs without taxes and the over-arching state. I have lost count of the number of times I have made an argument against welfarism and against, for example, nationalisation or the NHS and had people doubt that I could be any species of socialist. Here is the thing: the best solutions make necessary technology controllable by the people who use them and reduce our negative impact on the climate or the eco-sphere. Governments and businesses produce the "solutions" you would expect: undemocratic, large-scale, inappropriate and unsustainable. There are plenty of good ideas around about how we might create a zero-growth economy... it is not only conceivable but has many times been conceived. I need mention only the works of Michael Albert on participatory economics and the work on zero-growth done by various green thinkers.

"The reality is that a move away from growth based economic system is not currently conceivable. Not least because no one's offering a serious alternative." Perhaps there doesn’t seem to be any viable alternatives because the powers that be are too busy competing with each other, trying to win the next election and thinking too much about their own political careers rather than thinking about the wider, more long term needs of society/humanity/Planet Earth... and they say competition’s a good thing! Good for the competitors, maybe... Do not, perhaps, the politicians need knocking off their pedestals of power and political ambition? Maybe out-and-out anarchy would work, maybe it would not, but if there were far more elements in the political melting pot than just a tiny handful of self-obsessed parties, would not perhaps the resultant conglomerate mass be forced to co-operate to get things done and come up with viable, long-term solutions to the desperately serious issues which face our planet? pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

Lest anyone think "Global warming" is a debatable issue, I offer this excerpt from a trip log that I wrote six weeks ago. We were sailing the Southeast Coast of Alaska on the North American mainland. J.X.M By 10:30 A.M. The Sapphire Princess had entered Glacier Bay. She stopped, at Bartlett’s cove, to pick up a Park Ranger, who would give talks on the ecology of the area. This entire sixty mile fjord, and the surrounding terrain, comprise “Glaciers National Park.” It is a federal preserve that stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Canadian border, at the edge of the ice fields. George Vancouver had sailed by here in 1794. The four hundred foot high wall of ice, stretched for some 21 miles, across the entrance to the Fjord, and met him at the ocean’s edge. When naturalist John Muir returned here, in the 1890’s, the massive ice field had already retreated some 60 miles back up the fjord. Since then, the rivers of ice had fallen back still another 35 miles, to “Margerie’s Glacier” on the far end of the Fjord, at the Canadian border.Rangers say that the Summer temperature here have indeed risen by 3.5 degrees. The increase is speeding the melting of the glaciers.

I think there are few people who deny or even doubt the reality of global warming. The debate surrounds the possible causes. There are several leading academics (not just pro-Bush pro-oil companies) who believe that it is not caused (or not wholly caused) by human activity. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"Maybe out-and-out anarchy would work, maybe it would not, but if there were far more elements in the political melting pot than just a tiny handful of self-obsessed parties, would not perhaps the resultant conglomerate mass be forced to co-operate to get things done and come up with viable, long-term solutions to the desperately serious issues which face our planet?" I'm not really sure what you're arguing for. There are plenty of elements in the political melting pot already. Obviously people can't really vote for anarchy but nothing's stopping them having a go at setting up autonomous communes - in fact, quite a few peopl are having a go. People with vaguely anarchist instincts but who are less keen on actively opting out themselves can vote for the Green Party. I'm not a particular defender of the current political status quo - we currently have a choice between three vaguely socially liberal, economically right-wing parties - but I'm not sure what politicians would have to do to give you what you want.