Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Climate Change Has Claimed Its First Victim!.

Australia researchers said rising sea levels have wiped out a rodent that lived on the Great Coral Reef. The Bramble Cay melomys was so called because it lived on Bramble Cay, an atoll on the northern part of the reef. The seawater destroyed the animal's habitat and food source. So this destruction of species has begun and will until we do something about it – and "we" doesn't include capitalists who pussyfoot around with their treaties which, as the most, slow it down. 
Each group of politicians is responsible to the capitalist class of their countries, all of which want the maintenance (an ironic word) of capitalism because it simply means profit. 
Only an economic system which doesn't contain the profit system can stop and reverse the effects of global warming. 
 John Ayers.


Anonymous said...

Climate has changed throughout earth's history. Many species have come before and have been made extinct because of climate change, sea levels have risen and dropped before humans even evolved. This is nature and it is cyclical. The birth and destruction of species has occurred throughout earth's history, so how are you going to stop nature? You're just an anti-capitalist because your last sentence is a statement based on your own ideological theory.

ajohnstone said...

I think what is acknowledged is that the current climate change is man-made, or at least 97% of scientific opinion support that thesis. It is not a "natural" occurrence of periodic cycles but one that is based upon the technology that is being currently used and the purpose it is being used for. It is also a question of the rate of change so that eco-systems can adapt, something which is not possible in the fossil-fuel based CO2 pollution

I should point out that the SPGB was anti-capitalist long before the environmental destruction was an issue of importance or even discussed. We have indeed several good valid reasons of the detrimental effect of the capitalist economic system upon humanity's well-being that each would be reason enough to replace capitalism.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your 97%... New research is showing that volcanoes are responsible for putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, even when inactive - - Technology will eventually move us to cleaner fuels... You cannot have new technology without capitalism because if there is no profit, there is no incentive.

ajohnstone said...

You may disagree with the vast majority of scientific opinion, if you so desire.

Reading your own source i note that the article explains " I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2. Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years."

Can i suggest you read instead this link

Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Volcanoes can—and do—influence the global climate over time periods of a few years but this is achieved through the injection of sulfate aerosols into the high reaches of the atmosphere during the very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century.

Vested interests directs investment, especially into R and D, and capitalist corporations have actively discouraged investigation into alternatives. But eventually failed in that objective.

I note that today was the first day that Scotland provided for its daily energy needs by wind power.
Turbines in Scotland provided 39,545 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity to the National Grid on Sunday while the country’s total power consumption for homes, business and industry was 37,202 MWh – meaning wind power generated 106% of Scotland’s electricity needs.

Anonymous said...

I am not saying that we shouldn't be reducing our CO2 emissions, however, there are many factors that determine climate change. Your initial article mentions global warming, but there is now evidence that we will probably see global cooling soon due to the lack of solar activity -

Our star has heavy influence on our climate again on a cyclical basis because EVERYTHING is based around cycles. The universe, nature, even the economy is cyclical and not linear.

I am afraid that Governments around the world are using climate change as an excuse to TAX people more and more which will eventually bring our economies to collapse as we are overburdened with tax. It seems the rich get away with paying little in the first place and so the burden will be on the ordinary person who are already struggling to make ends meet.

All governments are corrupt... they only care for themselves and are heavily influenced through lobbying by corporations who will get politicians to change the laws in their favour so long they get paid into their private funds... The Clintons have taken this to a whole new level.

Capitalism is broken, but it can be fixed because if we live in a non-capitalist system where there is no profit, there will be no incentive to do anything. True communism is an ideology that always turns into socialism and this is where Governments benefit and the people suffer through high taxes, which the rich always avoid or they become Government as they have their own rules. Did you know that EU bureaucrats have a 50% reduction in their income tax? Why is that? Do they deserve it more than the ordinary person?

Anyway, I am digressing from the original article. I want to thank you for the debate and it seems agree on some things but disagree on many others... however, we have kept it civilised and that is what debate is all about.


ajohnstone said...

The solution to global warming is certainly not a carbon tax. We can definitely agree upon that. It isn’t enough to merely put a price on emissions with a carbon tax and charge it to consumers. Like sales taxes and all other standalone consumption taxes, a carbon tax is, by nature, regressive. This means that people further down the economic ladder will have more difficulty paying them than their wealthier counterparts. Low-income households in the US spend, on average, 7.2 percent of their income on electricity and fuel — far more than higher income families, which pay about 2.3 percent. Simply put, any tax that increases the price of fossil fuels would hit lower-income families harder than their affluent counterparts, because a bigger portion of their income would be subject to it.

The goal is to change the way we produce, live, and work to reduce and limit the use of fossil fuels. A successful approach to climate change would be one in which people understand the true costs of dirty energy, and actively demand an economic system that rejects its use in favour of a cleaner future.

Part of the problem is what has been defined as socialism/communism, simply isn't, and it leads so many well-meaning folk up dead-ends and one such false road is state-ownership, something alien to the original concept of Marxism. We share with Marx his vision of an "association - not a government - "we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

You should investigate more fully what is meant by libertarian socialism. Remaining within the capitalist system simply won't bring freedom for anybody (except for the 1%, of course and their political lackeys, some who are in the EU bureaucracy)