Socialist Resistance held its second day school on December 2, 2006 under the title ‘Ecosocialism or Barbarism: Can capitalism solve the ecological crisis?’. The four articles that follow are from the presentations made there. In the first, Jane Kelly compares two existing responses to climate change – the Stern Report and George Monbiot’s new book Heat and suggests that neither resolve the difficulties that capitalism, by its very nature, faces.

The title of this day school may at first seem apocalyptic, but if we think of what imperialism has already done and is doing today, it seems right to reinvent Rosa Luxemburg’s famous slogan ‘Socialism or Barbarism’. For we are faced with an ever more dangerous imperialism, especially in the US and increasingly urgent signs that the planet is in danger of changing so much that large areas of the world will become uninhabitable.

In Iraq and in Afghanistan we can see the lengths that US imperialism, supported by New Labour, is prepared to go to maintain its power, including its access to fossil fuels, oil and gas, wasting trillions of dollars that could have been spent on research into clean energy and efficiency. But it is not only foreign interventions that reveal what imperialism is capable of. The barbaric lack of a coordinated response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, itself probably an effect of climate change, local, state and federal government’s total lack of concern for the poor (mostly but not exclusively black) amongst its own populations, shocked the world in its inhumanity.

The attacks on civil liberties in the US, here and in other parts of the world, undertaken in the name of combating terrorism, are also a long-term preparation for the likely effects of global warming, including the possibility of mass migrations from those areas unable to sustain populations. Indeed the Pentagon Document, ‘An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security’, of October 2003, [1] is explicit. It poses what might happen in the event of a rapid climate change: ‘For some countries, climate change could become such a challenge that mass emigration results as the desperate peoples seek better lives in regions such as the United States that have the resources to adapt.’

It continues, ‘Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national honour.’ And it suggests the need to ‘Identify no-regrets strategies such as enhancing capabilities for water management’ (My emphasis). The framework is conflictual and, as in Iraq and elsewhere its solutions military: ‘it seems undeniable that severe environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict.’ And ‘humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment. Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid.’

Even without the rise in global competition in the form of the economies of China and India, it is clear that the ruling classes are preparing for a difficult future. It is therefore incumbent upon socialists to do the same. We must not only educate ourselves on the issues including the development of alternatives to fossil fuels, but we must link up with existing campaigns and help build opposition to likely authoritarian solutions.

Stern

The appropriately named Stern Report, the first serious response from the British ruling class, approaches the problem through an economistic framework, a kind of balance sheet. He does not however make light of the possible effects of global warming, including noting the likelihood of mass migrations. His proposal that emissions have to be reduced by 60 percent by 2050 presents a serious challenge to government, but capitalism frames the report - it will be cheaper to do something now rather than leave it. And market mechanisms are the answer – carbon trading, green taxes – a neo-liberal policy. He assumes that capitalism can find the solutions and that they won’t resist. In effect Stern wants to make the working class, the poor and those in underdeveloped countries pay for the crisis created by industrial capitalism. For example the current government proposal to charge mileage on motorways for cars, and introduce congestion charges in cities – without subsidising and reducing the costs of rail and coach transport – will make travel increasingly difficult for the poorer sections of society.

Even though the report is a serious challenge to government, it has many problems. He underestimates both the timescale available to make the necessary changes and the amount that needs to be cut from emissions – 90 percent in developed countries, according to Monbiot. The proposal to use economic incentives within a capitalist framework is utopian. On role of the market for example, Stern himself points out that the market for cheap air flights has ‘failed the environment’. His reliance on a market for carbon trading, is essentially a failed Kyoto mark 2. He totally ignores the issue of how to override the drive of capital for surplus value (profit) above all else, that capitalist production is for profit not need, that competition between businesses makes acting in overall interests of capitalism as a whole impossible, both nationally and internationally. Of course it might be possible to enforce some of these things, but it would need an authoritarian or fascist governments to impose restrictions – unless we achieve socialism.

Monbiot

George Monbiot, in his recent book Heat: how to stop the planet burning, reviewed in this issue [2], proposes a much more radical reduction in emissions in the rich, developed countries of 90 percent by 2030 – twenty-four years from now. It is accompanied by an advanced programme that supports carbon rationing, with annual carbon targets, as opposed to the more divisive policy of green taxes. He wants to replace cars on motorways with a system of coaches, with electric cars to take people into towns and cities, thus saving a whopping 90 percent emissions. He exposes the madness of government policy that proposes to spend £11.4 billion on road building and widening when the annual spending on policies to tackle climate change is a paltry £545 million. He also wants to freeze and then reduce airport capacity. As Derek Wall pointed out in a letter to the Guardian, the government by contrast is looking to triple air flights from 180 to 501 million by 2030. Air capacity must continue to expand, says a recent transport report or ‘growth will be squeezed’. The offsetting being suggested by many in government, is simply a copout – air travel is going to have to be reduced. We should fight for that reduction to be fair.

He also proposes closing all out of town stores to be replaced by warehouses that have only 5 percent of the emissions of stores and delivery to homes which would reduce emissions by 70 percent.

We could add to his ideas by demanding increased holiday entitlement to compensate for the longer travel time needed on boats and trains if flights are to be curtailed, a demand which should become a standard part of trade union negotiations. There should be training programmes for redeployment of those made unemployed by changes in production. We need a change from production for profit to production for need.

If they were carried out, Monbiot’s proposals would indeed be radical. They would lead to bankruptcies, unemployment internationally in for example airlines, tourism, retail, the food industry, and problems in countries dependent on single industries or products such as tourism or monocultural production and export of vegetables or flowers. Although some profits could be made from the techno-fixes beloved of capitalism, this is likely to be as little as 1 percent at first, followed by a rapid reduction.

Capitalism cannot do it

Monbiot himself is contradictory in how he sees this programme being taken up. Whether for tactical reasons or because he genuinely believes in capitalism’s ability to get itself out of the hole – he rejects a socialist answer, even though his appeal for non-divisive measures suggests he recognises the need to unite people. But his programme threatens capitalism’s existence. It would require many things which capitalism would be either loathe to adopt, including the socialisation of all transport and food production and distribution and some it cannot contemplate for it would require contraction of the world economy for a prolonged period which would be likely to lead to deep recession/slump. Indeed Stern himself refers to this as a possibility if we don’t act now – ‘like 1930s’.

Both Stern and Monbiot, while adopting what seem like rational approaches ignore the profit motive of capitalism and the short-term approach of all governments. No one company will embark on drastic programme of energy reduction unless all do; no one government will unless all do. This is the logic for an international agreement – the need for mass international movements to impose agreements on carbon reduction has never been greater.

Another world is possible

Climate refugees and mass migrations of peoples displaced by floods, mass unemployment and social unrest means some sort of authoritarian response is very possible. Current attacks on civil liberties in name of anti-terror laws are just the beginning. Socialists have to develop a programme that provides answers. We have to explain that it’s not that it can’t be done, that there isn’t the money available. But we have to ensure a redistribution of wealth. To those who work in industries that will have to be curtailed – cars, airlines, tourism, food - we have to pose alternative production for use rather than profit. We should pose egalitarian rather than divisive solutions, answers that unite rather than divide the working class, the poor and the peoples of the third world. We have to argue for redistribution of wealth to ensure that all can survive. Why should the likes of Bill Gates and Roman Abramovic own more capital than some nation states when others are dying from the effects of climate change. We need to develop our programme of partial and transitional demands while at the same time getting involved in local and national campaigns. We have a future to fight for – another world is possible.

Jane Kelly is one of the Editors of Socialist Outlook.