Back to index of Nerve 15 - Winter 2009

Nerve 15 Letters Page

Email us at: mail(at)catalystmedia.org.uk
Write to us at: Catalyst, 1st Floor, 96 Bold Street, Liverpool, L1 4HY

Dear Nerve,
Dave Hookes' Nerve 14 article (Technical Solutions to Climate Change) was an easy to follow review of the possible technical solutions to climate change. He stressed, though, that only with the commitment of all the vested interests, such as the oil and gas industries and the road and car lobbies, could energy consumption be switched from carbon based to renewable energy. If this was done then, "there is no technical or scientific reasons why all the present requirements for fossil-based energy cannot be replaced…"
Two questions arise out of this.
1. Should the primary aim be to replace one method of energy production with another and maintain present levels of energy usage?
2. Are we asking the vested interests to take charge of this change?
The burning of fossil fuels has speeded up enormously the cyclical process of global warming. Replacing one technology with another may slow this down but won't stop it, and just gives these same vested interests more opportunities for profit.
To borrow a quote from Paul Kingsnorth: "… the challenge posed by climate change is not really about technology. It is not even about carbon. It is about a society that has systematically hewed its inhabitants away from the natural world, and turned that world into a resource. It is about a society that imagines it operates in a bubble; that it can keep growing in a finite world, forever." (Guardian 'A wind farm is no answer' 1.09.09)
Dave is right to end by saying that the powerful interests need to be confronted. But is this to force them to lead the change to a sustainable system? Surely, when the very foundation of capitalism is built on greed and fixated with growth, this is like putting the slugs in charge of the lettuce.
Some people argue that we are already past the point of no return and only a fundamental change to how the planet is run will give humans any chance of survival. Rosa Luxemburg once said: 'It is either Socialism or Barbarism', and unfortunately it looks like we are heading for the chop.
Miles Platting

Dear Miles,
Many thanks for your constructively critical letter about my article on the technical solutions to climate change. I will try and answer your two questions as best I can.
Question 1. Should we maintain the same levels of energy usage albeit with renewable sources? My article inexcusably failed to include energy efficiency as an important component of combating climate change - apologies for that. However the general answer depends on who one means by 'we'. If 'we' are the people of the so-called advanced economies then the answer is a resounding 'no'. We must reduce our per capita energy consumption considerably. Each person in the UK consumes power at the rate of 5kW or so, that is, equivalent to 46,000 kWh or units of energy per annum. [1kWh = total energy expended by 720 workers each carrying a 1 cwt sack up a ramp rising to 10 m above the ground] I am sure that could be reduced eventually by as much as factors of between 3 and 5 using energy efficiency, change in life styles, levels of consumption, local sourcing, etc. If by 'we' one means the 50-60% of humanity living on subsistence of $1-2 per day then they clearly require a considerable increase in energy consumption, albeit of a renewable form. One approach is that of the 'Contract and Converge' movement, which says that each person on the planet is allowed to emit the same amount of CO2 and have access to the same power, say, 1kW.
Question 2. Should the vested interests take charge of this change? I did actually say that '…(it) would require political determination to confront and defeat powerful vested interests….', which does not exactly imply that they should be left in control. But as the rest of your letter indicates the deeper question is: Can capitalism be trusted to solve the climate crisis? Or does the climate crisis mean that there has to be a replacement of the capitalist mode of production by a socially-controlled production system based on equality, mutuality, and cooperation, that is, some form of socialism. Only then can humanity live in a sustainable way with the rest of nature. I strongly believe that this will finally be the case especially after recently reading Joel Kovel's 'The Enemy of Nature: the End of Capitalism or the End of the World'.
However, there is a problem, namely, of time-scale. According to the majority of climate scientists decisive intervention to reduce carbon emissions must begin now and substantial progress be made in the next decade or so, if we are to avoid runaway global warming. Even the most wildly optimistic comrade is not expecting a world-wide socialist revolution on that time-scale, I would think. The most idiotic position on the left vis à vis climate change is to say: "Give us a call when you realise that it’s all capitalism's fault and we will give you our socialist plan". There are two things wrong with that approach. Firstly it will be too late when the phone starts to ring. Secondly we have not got a socialist plan as yet. This is equivalent to the cretin-like attitude of fundamentalist Christians who welcome climate change as a 'sign of the times', that Jesus is about to return and rapture the faithful.
I think that the left should fully engage with the climate issue and put forward its own transitional proposals (not demands) which may have to be implemented using the technologies and know-how possessed, at present, by large corporations. If they refuse then the issue of ownership can then be raised in the interest of humanity and the planet.
Best regards Dave Hookes

PS: Your readers might like to consult the November 2009 edition of Scientific American for a comprehensive worked-out detailed plan to replace all present energy sources with renewable energy by 2030.

Printer friendly page