tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post1308351272598653559..comments2007-06-18T05:19:32.511-04:00Comments on ACTIVIST CLIMATE GUY: Global Warming is Causing Extinction of the Politi...Denis Rancourthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606claude.cde@gmail.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-6080298573444569032007-06-18T05:19:00.000-04:002007-06-18T05:19:00.000-04:00Frankly, I think the left are in the main either i...Frankly, I think the left are in the main either ignorant of or unwilling to face some elementary facts. In the case of GCC, George Monbiot's targets (I take Monbiot to representative of the mainstream consensus) have radical politico-economic implications. If they were implemented with the market economy left intact the results would surely be disastrous. In concrete terms there is no way out of a huge reduction in manufacturing, in power generation and transportation; alternative fuel sources and technologies improving efficiency do not appear to exist that would suffice to enable anywhere close to an 80% reduction (apart from all of the new problems many proposed alternative such as biofuels introduce). In an economy dependant on production and consumption this would mean a massive loss in jobs (apart from a new lot of bureaucrats and managers) and whatever taxes were placed on fossil fuels would make everything impossibly expensive for the poor (regardless of car ownership; electricity, heating fuel and goods which are shipped, basically everything you buy, would all skyrocket in price)--i.e., a large sector in the US that is struggling desperately as it is. And it is naive to expect that GCC policy will somehow undo the fabric of the New World Order. Any policies that are put into practice will either be quack solutions (assuming the problem is even as serious as it’s out made to be) or, if imposed sincerely, will only exacerbate the problems social injustice (CGG legislation could potentially even introduce new opportunities for population control, such as new laws infringing on civil liberties and greater restriction on free movement—even provide new pretexts for foreign interventions?). On balance, my sympathies are with the poor and the people of the South if this is the choice that comes down to. <BR/><BR/>Radical political change is clearly in order. But until genuinely democratic forms are in place, I think there is every reason to doubt that constructive measures on the environment will come out of our political system (in fact meansures taken in the name of the environment would almost certainly be ineffectual token efforts or positively destructive). It seems to me to be as absurd as to believe (e.g.) that the NATO/Kosovo War was a humanitarian intervention (as Clinton/Gore would have had us believe); elite interests are by their nature in direct conflict with social justice and saving the environment—they thrive on destruction. We must stop looking for a Golden Key, must stop looking for a savior, and take responsibility for ourselves.<BR/><BR/>I should note, I am not convinced that "what the science says" (having read a number of peer-reviewed articles supposedly making an incontrovertible case for AGC) really warrants any action being taken at this time. This is not a “denialist” position. We are talking about drastic measures that would come at a high price and we need to damn sure, I think, before proceeding (and even if we were damn sure, it would still be reasonable, at least in principal, to decide to take no action—at any rate the decision must follow informed public discussion and debate and be made by the general public, not self-appointed representatives or experts). Incedently, regardless of relevant scientific fact, the Climate Change Industry clearly already exists, it is parasitic and should be condemned, but also seen in perspective—there are much worse evils in the world to fight. The main thing is to make sure we don’t buy into any insane policies.Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17143385617413076862noreply@blogger.com