Capitalism’s rape of the environment is basic to its system of exploitation

Scan page 6

I been shaken by the BP oil spill and n the last 11 months the world has the Fukushima nuclear-plant crisis— possibly the two greatest catastrophes of oil drilling and nuclear power in his­ tory. This moment is critical for the for­ mation of a successful environmental movement.

The anti-ecological nature of the pre­ vailing social order is being exposed more sharply and openly than ever be­ fore. The Fukushima disaster demon­ strates the desperation of the capital­ ist class in an especially clear light, as nuclear power has been one of its most favored remedies for climate change.

The avowed attempt to slow climate change with nuclear power is yet an­ other scheme thrown up by capitalism to partially ameliorate environmen­ tal crises in the short term by creating ever greater, less manageable crises in the long term—at best. It is a “solution” that metes out the bulk of its destruc­ tion against working and oppressed people. It is not the first such “solution” of this kind, and it is not the only such “solution” proposed in relation to cli­ mate change.

For example, capitalist factory-style agriculture, which relies on vast mono­ crop farms, tends to rapidly deplete the soil. As a “solution,” huge amounts of chemical fertilizer are applied. How­ ever, the phosphorous and nitrogen that this pumps into the ecosystem wreaks havoc, especially in lakes and oceans, where it has created vast dead zones. Scientists such as James Hansen and Jo­ han Rockstrom have projected that the continued dumping of nitrogen or phos­ phorous from fertilizers into the oceans could result in ecological disasters on a similar scale to those created by climate change.

Of course, dependence on increasing amounts of chemical fertilizer is good for capitalist profits. It has aided corpo­ rate farms against the small ones while providing a lucrative outlet for chemical manufacturers.

And in comparison with nuclear pow­ er, chemical fertilizer is not so bad for Tony Savino / Socialist Action has in the immediate term. What else could be expected from an economic system based on per­ petual growth?

If the available energy is dou­ bled with renewable technology, what will happen when the oil runs out and the world economy has developed to require twice as much energy as is supplied by renewable sources? There aren’t enough rare earth minerals on this planet to provide all the parts and batteries necessary for such an enormous amount of power. What would people do then? Turn to nuclear energy?

The problem is not merely techno­ logical; it is in fact fundamentally social. The present profoundly anti-ecological technological structure is only one manifestation of this social crisis. The self-identified environmental move­ ment is brimming with strategies to curb fossil fuel use within the bounds of capitalism: Create small eco-friendly businesses that out-compete pollut­ ing corporations; cap-and-trade agree­ ments; institute government rationing of consumer goods that create or re­ quire green-house gas emissions.

While these proposals are very likely to degrade the condition of working and oppressed people (by raising the cost of living, expanding government powers over working people, or simply limiting fulfillment of needs), they pose no cred­ ible threat to the corporate and finan­ cial powers who depend on the destruc­ tion of our ecosystem for their survival.

There’s about $10 trillion in fossilfuel infrastructure available, which is expected to last 10 to 50 more years, according to an estimate by journalist Paul Roberts. It is owned by people and institutions with even more trillions at their disposal. Without decommission­ ing or converting this infrastructure, climate change will not slow an inch— no matter how much fuel efficiency or renewable energy is introduced.

Small businesses, market-based solu­ tions, and capitalist governments do not have the will or ability to take away that $10 trillion or the future profits antici­ (Left) Rally against nuclear power, held in New York City, April 2. pated by the companies in question.

We must be frank: Preventing immi­ nent ecological catastrophe on a scale never before seen means taking over or shutting down a significant amount of capitalist property, seriously encroach­ ing on their power, and ending their rule as soon as possible.

Rather than call for workers to sac­ rifice more, we must call for workers’ power over the economy. Instead of depending on markets and privately owned businesses to save us, we must call for public ownership and workers’ control of natural resources and the largest industrial and financial institu­ tions.

Instead of merely regulating the pur­ chase of environmentally hazardous commodities by working people, why not outlaw the production of such com­ modities in the first place? The enter­ prises that build such commodities should be nationalized and their pro­ duction converted into something use­ ful for humanity.

The March 26 marches against nucle­ ar power of some 210,000 in Germany demonstrate that it is possible for mass­ es of people to mount a serious politi­ cal challenge to the capitalists’ ability to determine what technology we use. The future of nuclear power everywhere is now in question. The Japanese govern­ ment, following the Fukushima crisis, is already considering nationalizing To­ kyo Electric Power Company. The logic of this challenge to nuclear power must be extended to the fossil fuel industry and all other central enemies of our ecosystem.

The only force capable of leading a direct, fundamental challenge to the possessors of capital are those who cre­ ate the capital—the working class. Of course, social groups like young peo­ ple, indigenous people, and the middle classes can take the lead initially and play important roles throughout the struggle. But to succeed, the movement for ecological sustainability must find a basis in the interests and aspirations of workers.

And here the movement must demon­ strate another central truth—develop­ ment of ecological sustainability does not require the degradation of the lives of working and oppressed people, or the reversion to an earlier social system. In fact, such a transition could very well be a part of a dramatic improvement in the lives of billions, and the development of a new society.

Demands for workers’ control over workplace safety, a 30-hour workweek for 40 hours pay (to create more jobs), quality mass transit, walkable cities, the elimination and conversion of military production, fresh poison-free food, pub­ licly provided quality home insulation, public ownership and conversion of the entire fossil-fuel industry, and a mas­ sive emergency program to reorganize the economy along ecologically sustain­ able lines (while employing tens of mil­ lions) all would simultaneously benefit working people and drastically improve the state of our ecosystem.

A movement built on demands like these would expose how the ecologi­ cal destruction created by capitalism is tied to the exploitation and oppression of working people. It would identify the long-term goals of ecological sus­ tainability with the immediate needs of the social forces capable of making it a reality. n