Capitalism cannot solve the climate crisis

Scan page 1

VOL. 34, NO. 5, MAY 2016 WWW.SOCIALISTACTION.ORG U.S. $1 / CANADA $2 This year’s Earth Day, hosted by the UN, was staged to be all about climate change. The chosen venue came attached with some historical irony. The land for the New York City complex housing the United Nations Headquarters was donated by John D. Rock­ efeller. His father started him off as a director of Standard Oil—main ancestor of Exxon-Mobil—as well as U.S. Steel. He was also a director of the Colo­ rado Fuel & Iron Company at the time of the bloody Ludlow Massacre that slaughtered wives and chil­ dren of striking coal miners.

Accompanied by brass bands, and many school children bused in for the occasion, representatives of 170 countries were on hand for a ceremonial sign­ ing of the accord adopted by the Paris Climate Sum­ mit last December. President Obama was in England celebrating Queen Elizabeth’s 90th birthday, but Secretary of State Kerry, with a granddaughter on his lap, signed for the U.S. Al Gore, who had signed the first climate treaty in Kyoto in 1997—which President Clinton declined to submit to the Senate for ratification—was present and beaming. Among other VIPs was Leonardo DiCaprio.

So when can we expect all this pomp to change our circumstances? An AFP story explains that it won’t be at a galloping pace—more the speed of the crea­ tures that the French like to turn into escargot:

“The next, and final, procedural phase will be rati­ fication by individual governments. Countries which do not sign the document on Friday can do so in the year that follows. The agreement sets out broad lines of attack against climate change. It defines the goal of limiting global warming to ‘well below’ two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—1.5C if possible. It does not prescribe deadlines or targets for curbing planet-warming greenhouse gas emis­ sions: these are described in further detail in nonbinding pledges countries filed to shore up the pact.

“On current trends, scientists say, the world will warm by 4C over benchmark pre-Industrial Revo­ lution levels—or 3C if countries live up to their pledges.”

A 4C world could not sustain human civilization as we know it; 3C would be only marginally less di­ sastrous. It could take many centuries for the green­ house layer to dissipate to pre-industrial levels. Even if the current non-binding pledges were met, we would be bequeathing unrelenting misery to fu­ ture generations.

Since the dominant driving force of global warm­ ing is fossil fuels, the solution would seem obvi­ ous—commit to completely replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable, freely available energy sourc­ es like solar, wind, and tidal, as quickly as possible. That is in fact what nearly all climate scientists pro­ pose. There are credible estimates that an emer­ gency crash program could accomplish this goal in 20-25 years.

But those who own the polluting global economy, and control most governments, reject such mea­ sures that mortally threaten their profits and rule. They will not agree to more than tactical tinkering. That’s why the non-binding goals are all over the map.

The U.S. largely relies on a temporary reduction in power-plant emissions due to conversion from coal to now cheaper fracked (and methane-spewing) natural gas. In fact, half of Obama’s pledge had al­ ready been accomplished when his plan was initially announced nearly two years ago. However, tiny Hol­ land, home base of Royal Dutch Shell, has a wary eye on rising sea levels. They plan to ban all cars other than plug-in electrics by 2025—while Shell contin­ ues business as usual elsewhere.

Like pesky dandelions in the garden, nuclear power advocates, in the camp of General Electric, are again sprouting, fertilized by the lack of progress toward needed elimination of fossil fuels. In late April, Edu­ ardo Porter wrote a New York Times article entitled, “Liberal Biases, Too, May Block Progress on Climate Change.” He says, “Ted Cruz’s argument that climate change is a hoax to justify a government takeover of the world is absurd. But Bernie Sanders’s argu­ ment that ‘toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit’ might also be damaging.”

(continued on page 5, in “Labor Briefing”)

----- pull-quotes -----

INSIDE SOCIALIST Capitalist bailout — 3

Fight for $15 — 2 Clinton & Honduras — 6 Canada: NDP conf. — 8 Chicago students — 4 Ireland 1916 — 9 Clinton & Honduras

Film: Eye in the Sky — 10 Art: Astro Time — 11 Verizon / Sanders — 12