Capitalocene Climate Change

 Are we are approaching a ‘tipping point’ beyond which rising global temperatures cannot be stopped? As Glasgow's COP26 ends many believe that it may well be the case because of humanity greedy and ceaseless exploitation of nature.

 Rather than accusing human beings as culpable for the climate emergency, the Socialist Party claims the culprit is the capitalist economic system.

The logic of capitalist competition forces each capitalist to obtain the maximum profit possible; otherwise, they will fall behind their competitors and go out of business. Production is therefore organised around the short term and the effect on the environment is of little concern for the capitalist. Any environmental harm is borne by nature itself and society. The necessity for capitalism to accumulate wealth and more wealth by re-investing is its overriding factor. Creating a profit is an end in itself under capitalism.

The common environmentalist approach focuses on individual consumption rather than questioning the logic of capitalist production itself. Companies are compelled to produce more in order to maximise profits with the effect that it creates the enormous waste of consumerism, urged on by an advertising industry, itself, socially useless. Obsolescence is built into products that are designed to be irreparable so that customers are trapped in a cycle of purchasing upgrades and replacements. Re-using and recycling while it shouldn’t be discouraged, is not a solution to the problem of waste and pollution as it does not challenge the insane logic of capitalist production and ignores the fact that consumers only account for a small minority of waste, most of which is created by industry and agriculture. 

Garrett Hardin’s  “The Tragedy of the Commons” provided an elite-friendly fable on behalf of capitalist private propertarians. The warming and poisoning of the planet are thanks to capitalism’s relentless drive to appropriate, commodify, and exploit every resource in the world.

Jason W. Moore, an environmental historian and historical geographer at Binghamton University, explains that “It was not humanity as whole that created large-scale industry and the massive textile factories of Manchester in the 19th century or Detroit in the last century or Shenzen today. It was capital.”

The most significant waste industry is the military and such non-productive activities as advertising, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and business services. On top of this was to be added the consumption of those who perform various policing and law-keeping operations for the capitalist system. Capitalism is wasteful in the wider ‘productive’ sector of the economy where a massive waste of energy occurs – when goods go by road that could go by rail or when workers are compelled to drive their individual cars to work through the inadequacy of public transport.

A future socialist society would prioritise human needs instead of profit and begin to restructure the economy and energy and transport usage in such a way that is sustainable and benefits humanity. Re-forestation would ensure that millions of trees would function as a carbon sink. Resources would be transferred from fossil fuel sourced energy to renewable energy and public transport. Studies have shown how solar farms in the Sahara could provide much of the energy needs of both Africa and Europe. The objection by mainstream economists is based on cost. Humanity as it consciously realises its power and its huge potential to change the world for the better should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem as some environmentalists mistakenly believe. 

We can create a sustainable socialist society for the betterment of humanity and nature.

What Overpopulation? (2)

 

There is no existential global overpopulation problem.

Who says so? Those experts who have been studying the demographic data for years. It is their conclusion.

Those who are attending COP26 support the scientific agreement on the planet’s climate crisis. Albeit perhaps with less consensus but still the majority of opinions also agree with the experts’ advice on the pandemic.

We have to then ask why so many environmentalists are apparently reluctant to accept the informed findings of those with proficient knowledge and still insist that the number of people on the planet is too many.

The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there is not yet 8 billion of us. But hunger and food insecurity still stalk the land in many places

The world has an abundance of resources and could provide for everyone’s needs.

That is another fact which researchers confirm.

Professionals working in the field for such as Oxfam or War on Want explain that there is hunger in the world not because resources are scarce, but because poor people don’t have sufficient money nor own land. 

Poverty and inequality cause hunger, not overpopulation.

But those who know are wrong, remains the claim of some green activists.

They point to the continuing growing world’s population. They point to the over-crowded mega-cities.

Indeed, it is because of what in demographics is called the population momentum. A transitional delay occurs because it is not only the number of children per woman that determine population growth but also the number of women of reproductive age. Eventually, when the fertility rate reaches the replacement rate and the population size of women in the reproductive age bracket stabilises, the population achieves equilibrium and population momentum comes to an end.

Population projections is not an exact science and assumptions are made when determining approximate figures and the further into the future the forecast, the greater the margin for error.

Nevertheless, a 2004 UN report titled “World Population to 2300” presents one scenario that if European fertility rates fail to rise above current levels:

There are some who oppose immigration who declare that some countries are already overcrowded and the population density is too high to accept newcomers.

Again the statistics do not bear out the interpretation that there is no more room for an increased number of people born or the arrival of newcomers.

There is plenty of space available in the world. Is the well-being of the Dutch suffering because of the proximity of other people to one another in their cities and town?

Many countries have a very low population density but it has done little to increase their prosperity. In fact, those who reside in the rural idyllic countryside lack many of the amenities and services of urban dwellers.

Instead of looking for illusory quick fixes such as GM agriculture, how about criticising the actual values behind our system and ways in which it promotes inequality for the benefit of the few? How about challenging the belief that opportunities and abundance can only exist when money flows.  

The reality is that we live on a spacious planet, one that could provide for everyone if we were to use its resources rationally and constructively.  

In farming, agro-ecology and permaculture are less environmentally destructive ones and hold the benefit of being even more productive than the present industrialised system of intensive agriculture.

 Instead of simply pointing fingers and blaming people society could instruct city planners to develop sensible and sustainable housing projects. The options are as endless as our imaginations.  For example, every home can come with one or two greenhouses that grow crops year-round, no matter the climate. Apartments can have shared communal allotments.

This means that people can feed themselves with only the plants growing locally.

Neighbourhood fish ponds and chicken coops can also be built for each house if vegetarianism isn’t adopted by everybody.

Hunger is NOT just an “inevitable” part of life.

 

The Socialist Party in Glasgow

 

What Overpopulation?

 

Overpopulation is blamed for the destruction of the planet, yet have we ever thought of pointing fingers at the unsustainable practices WE continue to perform in the name of “profit” despite the many existing alternatives?

It is not a question of the number of people inhabiting our planet, it is a question of the laws of capitalism. The truth is, if we all shifted towards an earth-friendly lifestyle and designed sustainable cities that would allow for self-sufficiency and collaboration for the good of all, we would no longer be considered a threat to the planet. We would work with nature and not against it. We are a part of nature after all and it is about time we stop feeling guilty for existing. What we should be critical of are our actions and the destructive system we continue to uphold – not our species itself – which can all be changed if we stop pretending we are separate from nature and each other.

Overpopulation describes a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment such that it can no longer support that population. Our over-crowded cities or poor developing countries are not closed environments. The economic laws of capitalism prevent food from being transported to where it is needed, or distributed to those who are hungry, “overpopulation” is not to blame. Hunger is a problem in many parts of the world, but it is not caused by the number of people. Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world’s current food supply. Enough grain is produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories per day – 1,500 more calories per day than recommended by the Food and Drug Administration.

The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and there is not even 8 billion of us. With 8 billion human brains at work, we produce enough food for 10 billion human bodies. Imagine how much food we can produce with 3 billion extra pairs of hands and 3 billion more minds

There is no reason to think that we are running out of human ingenuity.  If anything, a larger population means more opportunities for the kind of scientific collaboration and increased specialisation that results in such scientific leaps forward. Human knowledge can be passed on through the written and spoken word in ways that evolutionary or biological advantages can’t be.

 If we built this world, what makes us believe we cannot build something different? As of now, we use most of our creativity and intelligence to develop weapons of war, unsustainable technologies and meaningless products. We mostly unite in coalitions for military action. We waste incredible human potential for tasks that could be automated, or that serve no purpose.

What if we used all of our power for the betterment of all life instead of using it solely to empower the few at the top? What if we united not for war and destruction, but for peace and prosperity? What if we instead used this same potential to create sustainable technologies, beneficial products and harmonious systems that would allow humanity and the earth to thrive?

Imagine if we united as a people, stopped complying with capitalist laws and created a more beautiful world—not because of some piece of paper we would get in return but because it only makes sense.

We are growing, but definitely not at an exponential rate. In fact, our rates of growth are declining. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent. So yes, because 0.77 is greater than zero, it is a positive growth rate, and the world population will continue to grow because of something called population momentum. Most of this growth will be in undeveloped countries—their life expectancies are expected to rise in the next 50 years, contributing to their population growth. But the African continent has the potential to counteract the consequences.

Europe’s falling numbers is something to worry about. A UN report titled “World Population to 2300” paints a picture of Europe’s future if European fertility rates don’t rise above current levels:

“The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left.” 

In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist. Almost half of the European people live in a country with below-replacement fertility.

Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have 5 acres of land. Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have a half-acre of arable land. If we wanted to squeeze close, everyone in the world could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the island of Zanzibar. Many believe that overpopulation is a question of lack of space. It isn’t. Today, there is approximately 7,268,730,000 people on earth. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 square miles (7,494,271,488,000 square feet). If we divide 7,494,271,488,000 square feet by 7,268,730,000 people, we get 1031 square feet per person. This is enough space for everyone on earth to live in a townhouse while altogether fitting on a landmass the size of Texas. And we’re not even accounting for the average four-person family who would most likely share a home! We’re not saying that creating such a massive subdivision would be a smart, sustainable or practical thing to do. Cramming together a population that continues to over-consume, waste and poison the environment the way we currently do would be a recipe for disaster. This is just to give an idea of how it isn’t space itself that is lacking.

The urban population is on the rise. Since 2008, more than half of humanity has become urbanised. The reason is that there are more opportunities to make money in the city than in the countryside. A city is crowded because people come from miles and miles away to move there, not because of reckless reproduction and overpopulation.

The world has an abundance of resources and could provide for everyone’s needs, yet every year the richer countries waste million of tons of food. All the world’s nearly one billion hungry people could be lifted out of malnourishment on less than a quarter of the food that is wasted in the US, UK and Europe.

Meanwhile, the poor still starve to death – not because resources are scarce, but because they don’t have the money or have access to enough private land. In those countries where the poorest 20 % of the population earned a smaller percentage of a nation’s total income, they had less to eat. In other words, poverty and inequality cause hunger, not overpopulation.

 Africa has enormous still unexploited potential to grow food, with theoretical grain yields 25 to 35% higher than maximum potential yields in Europe or North America. Beyond yield potential, ample arable land awaits future use. In Chad, for example, only 10% of the farmland rated as having no serious production constraints is actually farmed. In countries notorious for famines like Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia and Mali, the area of unused good quality farmland is many times greater than the area actually farmed.

Don’t believe people starve because the world is overpopulated. The world isn’t overpopulated at all. It’s just very badly managed.

It is easy to blame some so-called “natural” phenomena that require artificial measures such as GMOs to “solve world hunger” or family planning for population reduction, but how about criticising the actual values behind our system and ways in which it promotes inequality for the benefit of the few? How about questioning the belief that opportunities and abundance can only exist where money flows when we live on a spacious planet that could provide for everyone if we were to use it intelligently?

Alternatives to unsustainable agricultural practices do exist. The success of new methods of agroecology gives an idea of the possibilities of overcoming food crises through self-reliance and sustainable, virtually pesticide-free agriculture. Environmentally sound agricultural alternatives can be more productive than environmentally destructive ones. Permaculture is a great example.

Instead of simply pointing fingers at a growing population city planners could develop sensible housing with recycling sanitation. The options are endless. Sustainable housing and city planning is not only a great idea for the planet, it would solve all hunger problems we face today. For example, every home is outfitted with one or two greenhouses that grow crops year-round, no matter the climate. This means that people can feed themselves with only the plants growing inside their own house. A fish pond and a chicken coop can also be built for each house if vegetarianism isn’t adopted by everybody.

Hunger is NOT just an “inevitable” part of life.

Global crises need world answers

 

Politicians, UN officials, NGO members, and thousands of environmental activists from across the world are debating how to address environmental degradation what governments do. They all seem to agree on and accept the need for each country to interpret the concept of a green economy according to national priorities that leaves it up to each country to define what is meant by a green economy. Discussions have so far been focused on new financial markets to be developed and opened up. But the destruction of ecosystems and the capitalist exchange economy are inseparable parts of the same problem. The capitalist system depends upon growth and accumulation to sustain itself.

Instead many are touting a mythical economy of the Green New Deal which they say will solve all our climate challenges. Under the rhetoric of “green economy”, capitalists are actually attempting to use nature as capital, proposing unconvincingly that the only way to preserve natural elements such as water and forests is through capitalist investment. For capitalists, nature is mainly an object to possess, exploit, transform and especially to profit from. This will open the door to the development of a new speculative market. This will allow some banks, corporations, brokers and intermediaries to make a lot of profit for a number of years until their financial bubble explodes, as can be seen with past speculative markets. While still ill-defined, they're generally referring to a model of economic growth based on massive private investment in clean energy, climate-resistant agriculture, and ecosystem services - like the ability of a wetland to filter water. Under this new concept, Wall Street gets to reap profits from a whole new line of business, and governments get to spend less protecting the environment.

Nature cannot be submitted to the will of the market. Putting a price on things like water or biodiversity as a way of managing their use turn them into commodities and risk having basic needs and services fall victim to speculators who make money off volatile prices. Does it make sense to put the future of our remaining common resources - forests, genes, the atmosphere, food - into the hands of people who treated our economy like a casino? Powerful transnational corporations and international businesses councils have successfully pressed for ‘marketisation’ which will amount to a dramatic expansion of the commercialisation and commodification of the natural environment and its life services. In effect, genuine sustainable development has therefore been denuded of meaning and is not supported by concrete measures to move away from the logic of capitalist growth that destroys irreplaceable ecological resources.

 Capitalism, a system based on the drive to accumulate more and more (endless and unlimited growth) – is at the root of these crises. Capitalism cannot be green.  We champion green socialism that focuses on production for need only and common ownership of the world’s wealth. 

 Ecological sound socialism is the necessary transformation to an environmentally sustainable economy. In order to avoid catastrophic and irreversible environmental destruction, world socialism will establish global sustainability strategies, based on science. The principles for sustainable development will be translated into practice. The world has never needed socialism as much as today. When crises occur, we come together very effectively and very quickly. During a war, during natural disasters, the best is often brought out in people. We survive and flourish because we look after each other. The bigger the crisis, the better we behave (although it is not always universal, of course.) It is surprisingly easy and fast how we could achieve real change. We can dramatically transform our production methods with existing proven technology. The only thing we really need to change is how we think. We need to recognise that spending more time helping each other, more time learning, more time involved in the community are the behaviours that actually bring a better quality of life.

The ideas of the ruling class have hoodwinked us! Carefully crafted propaganda convince us that a society based upon individual greed, exploitation and inequality is normal, natural and desirable. What kind of system is capitalism? This kind: If there are wars, it benefits the arms traders. If the disease spreads that is good for the pharmaceutical industry. If hurricanes and earthquakes reap destruction upon communities, that is beneficial for the construction industry.

Such are the realities of the cold-blooded economics by which the people of the world have been organised for hundreds of years. Many of us starve for lack of food while others go on diets because they eat too much. Many of us sleep in doorways and on the streets, yet pampered pets have their own beds in warm homes. The idea of keeping people healthy, safe, secure and alive is reduced to doing so only if they are able to create profits for those selling health, safety, security and life itself to the highest bidder in the market.

Men and women of all lands, in co-operation with one another, shall take charge and take responsibility for their daily lives through a network of inter-linked decentralised democratically-controlled committees, based on local neighbourhoods and places of work, rising to regional and then worldwide administrations, which will decide production and distribution requirements of society, based not on the ability to pay - but upon need. The abolition of money. The abolition of prices and wages. The abolition of private and State property. A world of free access.