No subject

1. The need for personal mobility can no longer be satisfied by producing
individual cars 
2. The way that commodities are transported must be questioned radically
(the "just in time" delivery by planes and trucks on global competitive
markets is nothing less than criminal) 
3. We have to ask whether we really need all these commodities; what
purpose they serve.

On the one hand, billions of people want essential goods and services to
fulfill very basic human needs. The capitalist system cannot satisfy them
because it permanently needs masses of unemployed people - "an industrial
reserve army", as Marx called them - in order to exert permanent pressure
on wages, thus maximizing its profits.

On the other hand, the capitalist way of satisfying needs - the production
of commodities for profit by competitive businesses, the tendency always
to sell more goods and services to those who can afford them - entails the
constant creation of new artificial needs, on a mass scale. Overproduction
and consumption, mass poverty and massive waste, unfufilled needs and
permanent frustration, exploitation of labour and the destruction of
natural resources are indivisible aspects of this system. The burning of
cheap fossil fuels is a key condition for its functioning.

Of course, fossil fuel stocks are limited, but the reserves are more than
sufficient to provoke catastrophic climate change. It is highly unlikely
that capitalism will decide not to use these reserves, especially in the
present context of world depression and fierce competition. It is even
more unlikely that it will end its addiction to fossil fuels in time to
respect the physical constraints that are necessary for climate
stabilization.

As a result of 200 years of capitalism, humanity is deep in a very
dangerous cul-de-sac which could result in barbarism on an unprecedented
scale. The escape route is clear. Globally, we must use less energy,
produce less material goods, and transfer clean technologies to the South:
these are key conditions in order to make the transition to renewable
sources possible within forty years. Simultaneously, we must satisfy
fundamental human needs, especially in the developing world. The problem
is that none of these objectives can be achieved within the framework of a
system which, because its objective is profit, can only consider avoiding
a catastrophe if the investment is "cost effective".

The achievement of these objectives requires an anticapitalist
perspective, translated into concrete measures such as an economic plan,
reduction of working time without loss of income, nationalization of the
energy sector, and nationalization of the bank and credit sector. The
fight against climate change is a matter for the class struggle. It is
more than that: it is a question of civilization.

_____

Daniel Tanuro is a Belgian ecosocialist and journalist. This article was
published in the June-July issue of the South African magazine Amandla.

References

[1] A Pacific Ocean island half way between Hawaii and Australia

[2] IPCC 2007, WG3, page 776

[3] The danger threshold has never been determined by any official body
except the European council, which estimated it at plus two degrees
Celsius. This decision was taken in 1996, on the basis of the IPCC 2nd
Assessment Report. Since then, scientists have established that climate
change is much more dangerous than was thought. On the basis of the 4th
report, it would be wise to adopt plus 1.5 degrees Celsius as the danger
threshold.

[4] WEA 2001, Chapter 5, table 5.26. The technical potential indicates the
amount of energy that can be delivered with the existing technologies,
independently of their costs.

Copyright (c) 2007 Climate and Capitalism

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=695#more-695


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/