I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Capitalism vs Climate

.
KW introduced us to the article Capitalism vs Climate by Naomi Klein in two earlier posts A and B .

He then makes a statement and asks the question:

"Will the private sector be able to deal with the massive climate changes bringing rises in sea levels, increased flooding and drought and widespread population movements? I would like to see someone on this blog try to answer this question in the affirmation, without simply writing off the coming crisis as a plot by leftists who want to destroy capitalism."

I want to try to give my answer to the question in a day or two. But first I want to respond to the statement by KW.

I think that it is relevant that her article is a criticism of a Heartland conference of Climate Deniers. Her arguments seem to be against this omnipresent conference. In the world of this article there is no reasonable person who agrees with her objective, but disagrees with her methods. These characters are convinced that climate change is a plot to destroy their way of life. They are the tools of the corporations who place their profits above the existence of our species or any species. In short, she has selected a perfect straw man.

Now to KW's statement:
I had said, "It seems that Ms. Klein arrives pretty quickly to her solution to the environmental problem – get rid of capitalism."

KW stated: "Wayne, Ms Klein does not say we should "get rid of capitalism" but only that it needs to be regulated and controlled because of the amount of planning necessary to deal with climate change."

I am going to offer some excerpts from her article first noting that the title is Capitalism vs Climate. To facilitate checking the context I will note where they are in the document (My copy is a word document in Times New Roman 12 pt font. It runs 19 pages.) Bold type is my emphasis.

page 5: "The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.
Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong."

page 6: "It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.
Here is where the Heartlanders have good reason to be afraid: arriving at these new systems is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades."

page 12: "So let’s summarize. Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency."
...
"But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises."
...
"Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests."

So, I (of course) agree that she did not actually use the words "get rid of capitalism" But based on her words, I don't think that I have misrepresented what she did say. I believe that KW advocates "regulation and control", but detonation is more than regulation and 'shredding the free-market ideology' and 'breaking every rule in the free-market playbook' are well beyond control of the free-market.
.

5 comments:

  1. Klein is a critic of the form of capitalism "that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades;" there was capitalism before this in the United States, for example the capitalist system (controlled and regulated) that FDR and the New Deal saved.

    I would also note that it is "the centrality of profit," which to me means that profit is more important than anything else, that she attacks. She also puts "free market" in quotation marks on p.5. This is significant. A more localized energy economy in which I could produce energy through solar cells on my house and sell some of it back to the grid is more of a free market economy than one in which big oil companies get large tax subsidies. I will grant that Klein might be a bit to my left, but I still take her main point to be that to deal adequately with climate change, we need planning and regulation and this will put serious limits on the big money folks who now pretty clearly control the economy and government of this country. My challenge remains: can we really deal with the seriousness of this threat by keeping the current plutocracy in power?? I may be anti big capitalism (not all capitalism) but I am not a socialist and neither is Klein, who explicitly opposed state socialism as a failure. Not all planning is socialism. Next?

    ReplyDelete
  2. .
    The question I was dealing (here) with was whether it was accurate to say that her article indicated that she wanted to "get rid of capitalism." I offered the evidence, you ignored the substance of it and switched to the topic that I said I would get to later. (Which makes "Next?" a bit odd.)

    Be patient. I will try.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As long as the greeners and deniers stand on opposite sides of the road and call each other names I expect that not much else (other than rock throwing) will happen. If you will allow me to throw a rock or two I will say that I would categorize Ms Klein’s article as condescending, opinionated, and incendiary. I have no problem with opinionated, but over all I feel her article does far more harm than good. In fairness I can point to articles by deniers that have the same negative attributes. A pox on both houses.

    Here is what I think the science says as of today:

    1. CO2 is a green house gas and humans produce CO2.
    2. There are number of green house gasses, other that CO2, produced by man that contribute to global warming that are not being made part of the conversation.
    3. Atmospheric CO2 is a requirement for plant growth and is not all bad.
    4. There are many natural causes of climate change.
    5. Climate change is a normal occurrence that will happen with or without any human contribution.
    6. Climate change is being modified (accelerated if you wish) due to human activities.
    7. The percent of climate change due to anthropogenic causes is not settled science.
    8. The claims that climate change will cause more storms, more droughts, stronger storms, more flooding is not settled science particularly in the science of meteorology.
    9. A warmer earth would be good for some and bad for others. i.e. warmer is not all bad. A fact that would be obvious if we were discussing the good and bad things associated with global cooling.

    And here is my opinion:

    1. To ignore climate change (manmade or natural) would be a mistake. But they are two facets of the same problem that can and should be addressed both separately and concurrently.
    2. To set an agenda driven course such as Ms Klein suggests would be a very risky enterprise indeed and one that I would not want to take.

    So KW’s questions was “Will the private sector be able to deal with the massive climate changes bringing rises in sea levels, increased flooding and drought and widespread population movements?

    And here is my answer. First the question makes no allowance for climate change due to non anthropogenic causes so I will assume that the question addresses climate changes due to both natural and manmade causes. Between 1850 and 2000 the sea levels rose approximately 12-18 inches. The IPCC estimates a rise of 7.2 to 23.6 inches in the next century. If private enterprise handled the rise between 1850 and 2000, without it being widely noticed or worried about, why would it not be able to handle the predicted rise by 2100. As for the flooding and drought, the science says it may (but not necessarily) increase, but it will almost certainly move to different locations on the globe; precipitating the mentioned population movements. That is not a new or unprecedented occurrence and again free enterprise handled that in the past and I would argue that with technology surpassing that available in the past we are better equipped as a society to handle future relocations.

    As for mass transit, recycling, electric cars, light rail, energy efficient homes, solar, wind, alternate energy sources, and other measures to reduce man’s contribution to global warming, I am for all of them. As for governments involvement, I am all for reasonable regulations and direction from the government. What Ms. Klein suggests does not meet my definition of reasonable.

    p.s. This is the last time I will be using the terms greeners and deniers since the terms themselves are not conducive to conversation since it tends to put individuals into two extreme and immutable camps. I don’t think most people fit in those extremes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Britain's government said Thursday that higher temperatures could see as many as 5,900 more people die as a result of hot summers, but predicts a sharp reduction in deaths due to cold weather by the 2050s”.

    The study cost 2.8M.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/britain-ranks-top-risks-posed-climate-change-15445400

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many think I am in denial on climate change because I refuse to adopt the “warming is all bad” mantra. For those who see a cooler earth as the only good climate change I refer you to this article.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-02/world/world_europe_europe-cold-snap_1_cold-blast-eastern-europe-ukraine?_s=PM:EUROPE

    ReplyDelete