PLANET OF PROFIT?

Last Updated on Friday, 09 December 2011 08:27 Written by Liv Shange Friday, 09 December 2011 08:14

Between November 28 - December 9, 2011, 15 000 delegates are in Durban for the United Nations’ 17th “Conference Of the Parties” (COP17) summit. Here the governments of the world are meant to come up with solutions to the global warming crisis – but few actually believe this will happen. Capitalism’s chase for profits and the destructive rivalry between its major economies are set to block COP17 from even agreeing on an extension of the totally inadequate Kyoto Protocol, and no amount of ruling class talk-shops can prevent what is a looming death threat to many of the planet’s species, including humans. Only a socialist transformation of the world, led by the working class’ revolutionary uprising, can lay the basis for ending global warming by running society according to a democratically agreed plan putting the needs of human society, including its natural environment, first.

Literally on the eve of COP17, eight people were killed in violent storms in Durban as their shacks were flooded by rain and houses fell apart - a tragic example of how the working class and poor are already paying the price for climate change which is caused by the same big business that is trying to force us to pay for its other failures through unemployment, poverty wages, hunger and division.

Global warming plays a role in the daily lives of workers and poor in South Africa and across the world - in rising food prices, extreme weather like floods and droughts, lack of efficient public transport, unemployment and poverty.

But the COP17 negotiators do not want us to see this - so they wrap global warming in technical language which can be difficult to understand. They are trying to hide a very simple truth: that global warming began with capitalism and can be ended only with capitalism - and that the power to do this is in the hands of the world’s working classes.

The climate crisis cannot be left to the current rulers of the world. In this pamplet, the Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM) gives a brief explanation of global warming and why a socialist transformation of society is needed to fight it - fast.

What is global warming?

By “global warming” is meant the dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature. The starting point for this rise in temperature is about 150-200 years ago (that is, at the same time as industrial capitalism was established). Since then the total increase in the planet’s temperature so far is about 0.8°C. It has been particularly sharp in the past 60 years.

There is overwhelming evidence that this increase in global temperature is caused by human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests and seas. Certain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere hold heat, in what is known as the greenhouse effect. Emitting increasing amounts of such greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is currently having an effect which can be likened to wrapping the planet in layer upon layer of blankets as the atmosphere retains more of the Sun’s heat.

The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O), and are emitted through the burning of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, petrol, natural gas). The major sources of greenhouse gas emissions are the metal industries (mining, smelting, manufacturing), fossil fuel energy generation (e.g. coal fired power plants) which today covers 80% of the world’s energy usage, the commercial agriculture industry which is estimated to alone contribute 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of fossil fuel-driven cars. Such emissions account for about 75% of the greenhouse effect.

Another 25% is caused mainly by the destruction of the planet’s forests and seas. Forests act as the planet’s “lungs” – with trees and plants “breathing in” CO₂ and “out” oxygen (O₂). Seas function the same way through the tiny living organisms in it – phytoplankton in the seas is the Earth’s major source of oxygen and storer of CO₂. Since 1950, the seas’ rising temperature has led to their level of phytoplankton shrinking by 40%.

Climate already in crisis

Global warming is not only a serious threat to the future – its devastating effects are already being felt. For example, the 66% rise in the price of bread in SA during the past three years has to a large extent been caused by global warming. “Extreme weather conditions” – heat waves, drought and floods – which last year diminished wheat harvests in the world’s largest producers of this staple (Russia and Canada) directly drove up the price of bread. Also the increased use of land to grow renewable bio-fuels has driven up food prices, coupled with capitalism’s cynical speculation in commodity prices. Somalia and other countries at the Horn of Africa – an area which is recognised as the “kind of canary in the mine for climate change” – have this year suffered the worst drought in 60 years, with tens of thousands starving to death (Reuters, 2011/07/11). Every year the deaths of about 300 000 people are directly and indirectly caused by climate change, according to a 2009 report by the Global Humanitarian Forum. Most of these deaths are due to the hunger, spread of malaria and other diseases which flourish in the wake of warmer or more extreme weather. 10% are killed in weather catastrophes, such as the tornado which killed two people in Duduza and Ficksburg in October. Global warming means that weather conditions become more extreme and unbalanced – e.g heat waves, flooding, drought, hurricanes and tornados.

Tipping into catastrophe

If emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO₂ continue at the present (accelerating) pace, global warming risks reaching “tipping points” when the higher temperature would set in motion self-reinforcing processes of carbon emissions which would be beyond human control and remedy. The main so-called reinforcing feedbacks would be the melting of the permafrost (permanently frozen ground) of the Arctic to a point where large underground deposits of greenhouse gas would be released and seep out into the atmosphere, and the destruction of plant and plankton life in forests and seas to a critical point when instead of absorbing CO₂ they would start releasing it. In other words, even if human societies managed to completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions after this point, emissions and climate change would continue. Climate feed-backs are already evident and climate scientists estimate that a 2°C increase in the planet’s temperature would mean a very high risk of reaching such tipping points.

What is to be done?

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly tells us that action needs to be taken to make sure global warming does not reach 2°C. The most credible view is that it should be limited to 1.5°C. To have a chance of achieving this, CO₂ emissions should be cut by at least 50% by 2020, and by a minimum of 90% by 2050, according to the most current scientific prognoses. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report the turn to cut emissions needs to be made by 2015 at the latest if there is to be a chance to limit the temperature rise to 2-2.4°C (still a dangerous level). If this is not done quite soon, but the world goes on with “business as usual”, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists predict that the temperature increase will be between an average 4°C and 6°C by the end of the century, with the increase going as far as 10°C in some areas, including Southern Africa. Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe the average rise may become as high as 9°C. This would mean a climate disaster – wiping out half of the planet’s species, according to the British Met Office Hadley Centre.

The technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with these drastic recommendations exists: Fossil fuels energy production could be replaced by renewable energy such as various forms of solar energy, wind and wave energy, geothermal energy etc – such renewable energy could provide the energy needs of the world many times over. Advanced and efficient public transport could replace fossil fuel-driven cars. A large part of the production that causes emissions is also completely unnecessary from the point of human need – e.g. the arms manufacturing industry, the packaging and branding industry, the commercial farming industry, the manufacturing of goods that is constructed to last only for a limited period of time – and could be replaced with socially useful “green” production.

The UN and the World Bank estimate that the cost of achieving its limited targets through supporting “mitigation and adaptation” would be between $400-600 every year until 2020.

The problem is that this is not happening – instead global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing. The capitalist system’s chaotic chase for profit and rivalry between nation states makes any meaningful action to stop emissions and global warming impossible. Even as the most enlightened members of the ruling classes are beginning to realise that something has to be done, their system does not allow the kind of planning according to the kind of priorities that is needed.

“Cap and trade” disaster

The UN began climate talks in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, out of which came the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. It was initially ratified by only 37 countries and while this number has since gone up to 192, it is still boycotted by the two major emitters – the US and China. The Kyoto agreement has in any case been of no real consequence. It set a target of limiting the rise in global temperature by 2020 to 2°C above pre-industrial levels and put in place a system of emissions “cap and trade”. The idea is that governments commit to cap greenhouse gas emissions at certain levels, and then issue permits to produce emissions which companies have to buy. A company that has lowered emissions gains carbon credits, which can then be sold as permits so that another company can emit the same amount that was saved. Through this trade, emitting carbon would become expensive and it would make sense for capitalists to shift to invest in green technology – in theory. In practice, this commodification of the air has not led to any reduction in emissions. Instead, governments have handed out large amounts of permits anxious not to be at a disadvantage with rival capitalist powers. As a result, the permits in circulation today exceed the world’s capacity to emit greenhouse gases.

What is being done is not just too little and too late but often directly counterproductive. Another aspect of the carbon trading system is the so called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) which allows companies to exchange its reductions promises for “green” projects in the Third World. Despite a huge trade in CDMs, many of these projects do not actually represent emission reductions as even the US and the European Union have recognised. Many have been directly destructive, such as the creation of “carbon sinks” through the planting of exotic trees, which absorb a lot of water and dry out agricultural lands, in Africa, or the building of giant dams with disastrous consequences for the local communities. In China and Korea, companies producing HFC-23 gases – very powerful greenhouse gases which are used in refrigeration – today make most of their profit not from sales of the actual product, but from getting carbon credits for destroying it – this is allegedly leading to a mushrooming of new HFC-23 producing plants where production is again “limited to save the environment” (Guardian, 2011/11/09). Another “carbon offset” scheme used by the UN, World Bank and other institutions is the Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and the Redd+, and ++. It also largely serves as a cover for big business to carry on business as usual while milking climate funds. Emissions trade in all forms just tightens the grip of the very capitalist market whose fundamental weaknesses create the problem.

Easy routes – to nowhere

The “green” rhetoric of the world’s governments also includes carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear power and genetically modified crops – all supposedly easy “solutions” which are however bound to make the way out even more difficult. CCS is still merely a theoretical possibility of capturing carbon from the atmosphere – not much to count on for another couple of decades.

The risks of nuclear power – as illustrated by the accident in Japan earlier this year – far outstrip its rather limited “carbon footprint” benefits. While nuclear fission itself does not produce greenhouse gas, the entire production process starting with mining is very energy intensive. As yet no safe way of storing nuclear waste for the required 200 000 years has been devised. Genetically modified crops also carry several risks, including increased dependency on monocultures and vulnerability to climate change.

Carbon taxation is promoted by many environmentalist organisations and some governments, including SA’s. Carbon taxation would punish companies for emitting greenhouse gases. In SA, Eskom and Sasol stand for most of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and would be the main targets of a carbon tax. These state-owned companies, which are however run to serve private capital, would simply pass on the cost to electricity users. Ordinary people are also made to pay through road tolls and taxation on petrol, without having realistic alternative choices.

COP17 – cynical circus

Going into COP17, the standing agreement resulting from the previous COPs would result in a 4°C warming from emissions alone, and a 6° or more when reinforcing feedbacks are factored in, according to Greenpeace. COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009, which had been planned as the summit which would agree on an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, failed to produce even a joint declaration, and was dubbed “worse than useless” even by the capitalist mouthpiece Financial Times. Instead the summit was effectively sidelined by by last-minute backroom discussions between the US, China, India, Brazil and SA (in actual fact, bilateral discussions US-China with hangers-on) which produced a very vague, non-binding, “accord”. According to this “Copenhagen Accord”, the US should cut its emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 – that is, only 4% from the 1990 levels (which form the starting point of the Kyoto agreement) – compare this to the 50% cut motivated by climate science! The other countries merely agreed to try to increase their environmental efficiency without target or timescale; meaning that even if implemented, emissions could increase as economic growth in e.g. China would outstrip increased efficiency.

After the Copenhagen fiasco, in an attempt to save face, the delegates of 2010’s COP16 in Cancún did not even pretend to be doing something significant but merely sanctioned the coup represented by the Copenhagen Accord, elevating it to formal legitimacy with 140 signatories.

The main preoccupation of COP negotiations is to formulate as many and as clever loopholes as possible as no capitalist class wants to pay a price that could undermine corporate profitability. The tensions between the US and China, which appear as the most immediate obstacle to coming up with an extension of the Kyoto-fudge, are based on the contradictions between it capitalist classes. The underdeveloped and so-called emerging economies, including SA, are brought in largely as pawns in this game.

COP17 in Durban is now supposed to be D-Day for the planet. Indeed, stopping global warming is a race against time – but the COPs and UN protocols are not providing a solution. While expectations of the summit have been close to zero from the onset, some were hoping for the European Union nations to come together with China to force the US to “commit to commit” to a new “binding” agreement. Theoretically this would not be impossible, with the inclusion of a sufficient amount of loopholes allowing big business to escape any significant cost. This is however extremely unlikely, given the increasingly renewed momentum of global economic crisis and the heightened tensions that come with.

SA government posing as climate champion

As COP17 hosts, the SA government of course attaches a lot of prestige to the summit, but has admitted that “there is little hope of achieving an ambitious, legally binding deal” as “the global political dynamics are not very supportive of a progressive trend in negotiations” (Sapa, 2011/09/21). SA has aligned itself with China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gas, in posing as a champion of the underdeveloped world, and also claims to represent “an African position”. SA is demanding that “developing countries”, including SA, should receive funding from the developed ones to cut carbon emissions, according to a “fair share” differentiated responsibility approach.

It is true that the world’s 50 poorest countries have only contributed 1% of total carbon emissions while taking the overwhelming global warming hit. Millions of SA households have no access to electricity at all, and millions yet have it cut off. But for the government to try and claim “developing” status based on its failure to address what is now the world’s widest gap between rich and poor is worse than hypocritical. The government not acting out of solidarity with the poor in SA or on the continent – it is just trying to justify its continued subsidising of SA big business and multinationals with dirt-cheap coal-powered electricity. Capital, whether SA-based or multinational, drives and benefits from pollution and should be the ones paying to end global warming.

SA is itself the world’s 12^th largest producer of carbon emissions, by far outstripping all other African countries. It has one of the world’s highest per capita emissions level, thanks to the reliance of coal-driven electricity. Contrary to the official COP17 propaganda, though, we are not all in it together: 75% of SA electricity is used by business, a total of 60% by the mines and the manufacturing industry, according to Earthlife. BHP Billiton alone consumes 10% of the country’s electricity – all at special prices well below production cost, even if the ecological, social and health costs are not counted. In line with its commitment to serve the interests of big business, the government is pressing ahead to massively expand coal power – ensuring capital a steady supply of cheap electricity and a significant increase in the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere.

Lip service vs. reality

Through Eskom, the government is building three new gigantic coal power stations. The Kusile plant alone will increase SA’s contribution to global warming by 10%, according to Greenpeace. SA’s Integrated Resource Plan 2010-2030 outlines a 29% increase in CO₂ emissions by 2050! Meanwhile, just in time for COP17, the government has produced a White Paper on climate change, committing to target a temperature rise under 2°C. The White Paper also sets emissions targets which would imply a much higher warming than that, but which are still made a mockery of by the IRP 2010-2030. According to various ways of calculating “fair share” and differentiated responsibility, taking into consideration historical and current emissions, socio-economic situation, technical level, etc, the weight of SA’s responsibility would still have required it to start cutting emissions sharply in 2010, according to Earthlife, and hundreds of poorer countries would be more in need of financial assistance.

A Green Accord has also been signed by government, business and the trade union federations at Nedlac, promising to create 300 000 “climate jobs”. As with the promises to invest in renewable energy as well as in coal and nuclear power (six new nuclear reactors are to be built from next year), such cannot be interpreted as anything beyond empty lip service given the major direction of government funds and -activities. The government has also taken a “progressive” stance by opposing carbon trade and favouring carbon taxation. Again, if implemented such a tax is likely to by yet another way to get working class people to subsidise continued pollution while not posing any threat to corporate profits.

Capitalism behind global warming

Capitalist governments and their institutions have proven themselves, over and over, incapable of overcoming capital’s resistance to effective action. Serious strategists of capital recognise that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming; that it will have catastrophic economic and social consequences if it is not curbed; that measures need to be taken which will be more and more difficult and expensive the later they are set in motion. Some actual capitalists even see “green technology “ as an interesting and profitable new field of investment, and many cynically speculate the various carbon trading schemes. The logic of capitalism allows various industries to attempt to increase environmental efficiency by piecemeal atonements of existing outdated technology (such as car engines) to score carbon credits, but renders unthinkable the massive investment that would be needed to eliminate emissions by putting alternative technology to mass use.

While it cannot be excluded that some measures may be forced on the ruling classes under threat from weather disasters and increasing public awareness, but these will largely be misdirected, almost impossible to control and often directly counterproductive. In any case, even if COP17 against all odds would come up with a nice-sounding “binding” protocol, the question would remain who would enforce it. Climate change which involves the planet’s shared atmosphere clearly exposes the limits of the nation state, and their UN arena.

Few single issues bring home the dead-end of capitalism as starkly as global warming. It started with capitalism, and as long as capitalism remains in place it will be driven onwards – thanks to this system’s relentless chase for profit, built-in fragmentation and waste. Only the ending of capitalism and its replacement with a socialist society can make it possible to stop carbon emissions and global warming.

The ecological case for socialism

A socialist transformation of society means nothing short of revolutions, worldwide, that take control of the economy and natural resources out of the hands of the tiny elite which holds them today, putting them instead under the democratic control and management of organised workers and poor communities. Replacing the chaotic rule of monopolistic markets with democratic planning driven by the needs of people and their environment would lay a basis for the massive shift that is needed in the entire set-up of production and social activity. Socialist planning could allow massive investment in renewable energy, means to save energy and research and development into more renewable energy. It could eliminate the massive waste built into today’s capitalism, by being driven by producing lasting use values instead of as many commodities for exchange as possible. It could break the power of e.g. the motor industry and provide free or affordable public transport. It could also prioritise assistance to those who are already worst affected by climate change, and allow the underdeveloped regions of the world to grow their economies without sacrificing the atmosphere.

Cochabamba People’s Agreement

The Cochabamba People’s Agreement which was adopted in a “peoples’ summit” modelled on the World Social Forums in Bolivia in April 2010 recognises the need to end capitalism, and puts forward radical demands for sharp cuts in carbon emissions to be carried by the “developed” nations. Some in the environmental movement in SA see the Cochabamba agreement as the way forward. While Cochabamba certainly was a step in the right direction, it fell short in a very critical way: instead of setting out to build a mass movement to fight climate change, based on the mass organisations of the rural and urban poor, the landless people, workers, youth and all those who are increasingly looking for a way out of this system, it took its demands back to the failed UN climate structures, just months after the spectacular collapse of COP15 in Copenhagen.

The UN has no solutions – it is itself part of the problem. Instead of overcoming the limits of the nation state, the UN serves as an arena for each state’s fighting out its capitalist interests against others, under the total domination by the imperialist countries, in particular the US, and China. The complete failure of 17 years of UN-led climate negotiations speak for themselves. Reverting back to the UN reflects the shying away from the inevitable socialist and revolutionary conclusions of the looming global warming catastrophe. This appeals to some on the green left who lack confidence in the world working classes’ ability to take control of society and the economy. The same mindset which pushed the Cochabamba delegates back to the UN is pushing many environmentalists to nurture desperate hopes-against-hope in various climate schemes bearing fruit within capitalism, often despite having brilliantly outlined their futility. For example, Earthlife-SA in a recent comment on the government’s climate White Paper spells out the reasons why carbon taxation will not work only to reaffirm its support for it because “if it does not work, nothing will”.

What about Russia... and China?

The effective confinement within the capitalist box which still dominates the leaderships of the green movements is linked to a misunderstanding of the systems which prevailed in the former Soviet Union and today in China. Many, including the Democratic Left Front in SA, declare that “socialist” countries also destroyed the environment, and that a new “eco-socialist” ideology therefore is needed. Indeed, by the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, its level of ecological devastation was massive. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the unsustainable intensive agriculture which turned vast central Asian farmlands into desert, the virtual wiping-out of the Aral sea are a few examples of this. However, this had nothing to do with socialism.

The Russian revolution in 1917 was the world’s first successful socialist revolution and created a workers’ democracy based on the soviet (council) system but its attempt to create a socialist society was cut across by a political counter-revolution which came to a decisive point in the 1920s. Internationally, the revolutionary uprisings inspired by the Russian revolution had been defeated, leaving the underdeveloped Russia isolated and soon attacked by imperialism in a civil war that lasted three years. Under these circumstances of total devastation and impoverishment when every day could have been the last for the soviet regime, workers’ democracy was fragmented and a new layer of bureaucrats rose which eventually totally destroyed crushed all elements of workers’ democracy. Stalin was the bureaucrats’ political mouthpiece. This new elite’s sole aim was to hold onto power so that they could secure as much as possible of the country’s scarce resources for themselves. Although capitalism had been overthrown, the working class was not in control of society. As the Democratic Socialist Movement we therefore speak of the former Soviet Union as a bureaucratically deformed workers state.

Despite this Stalinist dictatorship, planning allowed the Soviet economy to grow at unprecedented rates. The scale of growth in combination with the ruling elite’s indifference to everything but their thirst for personal riches also allowed for a massive scale of environmental destruction. This has also been the case with China, which was modelled on the Soviet deformed workers’ states without even a trace of genuine socialist democracy. In recent years in China, ecological degradation has been propelled further by the partial restoration of super-exploitative capitalism under the so-called Communist regime.

It is very unlikely that the coming socialist revolutions will face such exceptional and unfavourable circumstances as Russia did and go down the same route of deformation. The guarantees against this must be the active democratic control of all aspects of society, including harmonising the needs of producers, consumers and the environment. The principles of no privileges for elected representatives, the right to recall and rotation of posts, and reduction of work hours to allow for everyone’s participation in the running of society will ensure that workers’ democracy stays alive. The socialist revolution must be prepared for world-wide, as socialism can only be established internationally.

On the other hand, it is more than likely that if socialist revolutions do not put an end to capitalism, we will face an almost unimaginable climate catastrophe within this century, along with all the other aspects of the failure of this system: economic crisis, mass unemployment and poverty, racist and sexist divisions, imperialist oppression and wars.

Stop the COPs

MINI CLIMATE CHANGE DICTIONARY

Adaptation: Measures taken to cope with the effects of climate change – e.g. changing lifestyles, infrastructure, production methods in line with a warmer and more extreme climate.

Atmosphere: the layer of gas, such as oxygen, water vapour and carbon dioxide, which surrounds the Earth’s surface and enables life on the planet.

Biofuel: A fuel produced from recently living beings or their waste products. To be considered a biofuel, the fuel must contain more than 80 percent renewable materials.

Cap and trade: A (failed) attempt to limit the amount of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere by placing limits on how many emissions each large polluting company is allowed to release. Governments issue each company with “credits” (also called “licences” and “permits”) to pollute a certain amount. This overall pollution limit is the “cap.” If a company doesn’t use all of its credits, then it has extra credits that it can sell. If a company goes past its limit, it will need to buy extra credits from other companies who have not reached their limits.

Carbon footprint: A measure of how much carbon pollution a person, business or organisation emits, usually in a year.

Carbon sink: A natural or humanmade system that absorbs and stores CO₂.

Carbon tax: A tax placed on the emission of carbon dioxide

CO₂e: greenhouse effect equivalent of CO2 (carbon dioxide) of another greenhouse gas. CO2 is used as sphere.

Deforestation: the destruction of forests e.g. through logging. The technical definition requires 90% of a forest to disappear for it to count as deforestation.

Ecology: the science of the relationships between living beings and their environment.

Eco-system: a community of living beings and their environment functioning as an inter-dependent unit

Emission Permit: A unit of emissions allotted to a polluter that can then be sold or purchased through an emissions trading scheme.

Fossil fuels: Composed of organisms that have been dead for millions of years, these fuels include coal, oil and natural gas. When fossil fuels are burnt to produce energy, they also produce carbon dioxide.

Forest degradation: partial destruction of forests or disturbance of a forest’s eco-system.

Geothermal Energy: Heat from within the Earth, produced by the decay of radioactive particles, which can be recovered as steam or hot water and used to create low-emission energy.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The world’s leading body for assessment of climate change, established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environmental Programme. Includes both scientists and government officials.

Mitigation: Activities undertaken to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Renewable energy: Energy that comes from natural sources such as wind, sun, waves, and biofuels such as organic waste, manure or plants. These sources are renewable, because they do not run out. Renewable energy sources have either low emissions or are emissions-free.