In a lively branch meeting, we discussed issues ranging from the Scottish elections to carbon emissions trading to the BNP.Secretary JT (for reasons of security - BNP members operate a charming website called 'Redwatch' which publishes details of socialists with the aim of fascist thugs beating them up - we use initials in these branch meeting reports) opened the meeting with his analysis of the recent elections. He highlighted the fact that despite New Labour's annihilation in Scotland and retreat in Wales, they had not done so bad in England. In some parts of the country, such as the large northern cities and Coventry, the New Labour vote actually went up. JT pinned this on the fears of many traditional Labour voters of the return of a Tory government, which despite Cameron's soft soaping, is rightly dreaded by most working class people. It may also be due to Blair's imminent departure and illusions that still exist in Gordon Brown. The BNP had not done as well as hoped, and though they gained one seat overall, they lost four seats they previously held, demonstrating that once people see what they are really about they are quickly ditched.
In the discussion that followed this opening, those at the meeting generally agreed with the analysis about the fortunes of the Labour Party. JL also voiced his view that anti-fascist campaigning had to put forward an alternative (in the form of the Campaign for a New Workers' Party) or else be pointless in combating the conditions that the BNP thrive in - the lack of a political alternative to the parties of cuts and privatisation.
Linking the opening discussion with the main discussion on the environment, chair AC noted the progress of the Greens in this election and how they are seen by many as a left wing alternative. Many attending the meeting had examples of opportunism and right wing policies pursued by the Greens, for example voting through budgets cutting services in Lewisham and Kirklees in exchange for a few pitiful concessions such as slightly increased recycling, and proposing increasing already extortionate hospital car parking prices and raising the idea of congestion charging in North Devon.
In the organisational section of the meeting the issue of the press fund was raised - the party needs to replace its ageing printing press with some more modern equipment and, having no rich backers, we rely on the financial sacrifices of our members to get things done. Many Exeter Socialist Party members have pledged outstanding amounts to the fund.
JT raised the request by the Irish Socialist Party for England and Wales Socialist Party members to help with their election campaign. In the May 24th election we hope to have Joe Higgins TD (member of the Irish parliament the Dail) re-elected and Cllr. Clare Daly elected.
Also, with the CNWP conference on Saturday, it was confirmed that there will be 5 CNWP supporters attending what should be a historic and inspiring event.
TA led the main discussion on the environment with a wide ranging introduction touching on the science behind climate change, the wilful inactivity of Governments due to obsession with short term rapid economic growth and close relations with the fossil fuel industry. TA left us all to draw our conclusions when he revealed that the Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only scientific body, presumably twinned with the organisation 'Turkeys Against Christmas'.
TA outlined the forces inherent within capitalism that not only cause this tremendous environmental destruction but also render it incapable of doing anything meaningful to solve the problem - in fact the private free-market in energy means decisions are based on profit not social and environmental need - the prices of different fuels dictating whether they would be used in power stations regardless of the carbon dioxide burning them releases.
There were many viable solutions in terms of energy conservation and using greener energy, and while individuals did have a responsibility to act in an environmentally friendly way, ultimately this would be a drop in the ocean while big business pollutes the planet.
In the discussion following TA's lead off, the fact that science is not divorced from society was raised. For instance, the original report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) written by scientists and much more robust in its conclusions and recommendations, was watered down dramatically by Governments to make it more vague and avoid pinning the blame on Governments and big business.
The idea of a democratically planned economy as a counterpoint to the capitalist free market anarchy we currently live in was also raised. In a democratically planned economy, long term decisions would be democratically made regarding energy generation, enabling mass construction of renewable energy facilities, coupled with a programme of energy efficiency. For example, Cuba, a planned economy (not democratically planned, so there are inefficiences and flaws) was able to pursue a programme of replacing all of its lightbulbs with energy efficient lightbulbs. Cuba is also recognised by the UN as the only environmentally sustainable country in the world. If a poor country which doesn't have the undoubted advantages of having its planning democratically controlled, think what democratic socialist planning could achieve in a rich country like Britain.
All the capitalist apologists can muster is a 'carbon emissions trading scheme' - whereby licences to pollute are bought and sold in a kind of stock exchange. In other words, the capitalists have even found a way to make money out of environmental damage! The scheme is ineffective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions though.
The issue of 'Green taxes' was also raised. As socialists we would oppose all taxes such as Green taxes, that disproportionately affect ordinary working class people - a tax on air travel would prevent a normal family from going abroad on holiday, but the rich Government minister would be able to travel without restriction! We favour democratic socialist planning as a solution to environmental problems, not reducing living conditions for ordinary people.
As luck would have it, there happens to be an excellent article on alternative energy sources in this week's copy of the socialist, the weekly newspaper of the Socialist Party, an indispensible read for workers and youth: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/485/index.html?id=pp1183.htm
Apologies to any who attended yesterday's meeting whose contributions I have missed off, I do remember it being an excellent discussion with a lot of interesting, relevant and insightful points put forward by all those who spoke, but I can't remember everything and didn't take extensive notes, and this post has gone on quite long anyway. It would be great though if we could have a bit of debate in the comments section on some of the points raised at the meeting.
3 comments:
Thanks for the report on yesterday's meeting, sorry I couldn't make it. It's good to see such a discussion taking place, and I'd certainly make some points:
Firstly on Global Warming: Whilst it's undeniable that there is a warming trend going on currently, I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that this warming is being caused by CO2 Emissions. Geological, ice core and ground core records all show that such trends have occurred on a regular basis throughout history.
The effects of other factors, such as Sea currents, magnetic fields, volcanic activies and aerosol gases, particulates in the upper atmosphere and 'global dimming', solar radiation and sunspots, as well as deforestation, all contribute to the balance of forces controlling global temperature trends.
Many fields of research turn up their own evidence pointing towards the impact of what they are investigating on the environment. Environmental science itself, a field which has mushroomed in the past 50 years, is largely in it's infancy, and much of it's research is driven by looking at Climate Change, Global Warming & CO2 Emissions.
What is abundantly clear however, is that Capitalism cannot provide a clean and balanced environment within which we would all like to live. That only a planned economy under democratic workers control can guarantee the future of our race and our planet.
But I would caution comrades against swallowing all the CO2/Global Warming 'recieved wisdom' that they may come across. We need a more dialectical approach to the issue.
I think it's worthwhile been scpetical about CO2 emissions, but we must remember that they are currently much higher than previously in human history
Although there have been global warming blips throughout history, the one we are currently going through is much greater than in the past.
The most worrying thing is some of the feedback loops global warming is creating, most seriously for me the melting of polar ice caps, which contain methane, a gas that is much worse than CO2 for global warming. There are several other gasses that are more potent than CO2 such as CFCs too.
The point made in the piece about Cuba is quite interesting though and shows the effect that a planned economy (even bureaucratically mismanaged) can have. A planned economy would be able to do many things such as plan transport more efficiently etc.
From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits
Is Global Warming a Sin?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.
Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.
Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a construct now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith or doctrine. Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.
As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 per cent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little bit warmer. The not very reliable data on the world's average temperature (which omit most of the world's oceans and remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) show about a 0.5Co increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it's still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 per cent of solar radiation that's absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in humid tropical atmosphere, can be as high as 2 per cent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm. As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, clouds, snow, ice cover and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today's temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.
We're warmer now, because today's world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth's elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth's orbit and tilt gives us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.
Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there's at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. "So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.
It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. Trouble is, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, and that's not even to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth's increasingly hot molten core.
Post a Comment