Hello:
This posting on climate change and energy issues was written to try
to influence Green electoral politics in Canada. Please feel free to
reproduce it, should anyone so desire.
Best and for the Earth, David
********
Reclaiming the Commons: Responding to Climate Change and Peak Oil
"We must live at a level that we seriously can wish others to attain,
not at a level that requires the bulk of humanity NOT to
reach." Arne Naess, in _Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the
Progress of Ecophilosophy_, p. 224.
"The Greens have become a party of timorous environmentalists
attempting to bring in a few petty environmental reforms, and the
majority of them have become adherents of eco-capitalism. Their
programmes and policies are full of inner contradictions, which arise
from the fact that they are afraid of telling voters hard ecological
truths." Saral Sarkar, speaking of the German Green Party in his
1999 book _Eco-socialism or Eco-capitalism_? p. 200.
Introduction
I believe the understanding that the climate is changing, and that
this is for the worse, is starting to penetrate the consciousness of
many people in Canada and in other countries. We seem to be in an era
when many also understand that "peak oil" and "peak natural gas" have
arrived or are about to arrive. What this will mean for a global
production and distribution economy, totally addicted to fossil
fuels, and for the economic, social, political, cultural, and
military relationships built around this, is now being argued over by
those willing to admit that climate change and diminishing oil and
natural gas supplies are upon us. (The figure for world consumption
of oil products is usually given as about 84 million barrels per day.)
"We can solve the climate crisis" stated Elizabeth May, Green Party
leadership candidate, in a recent CBC radio phone-in program in the
Maritimes. Yet deeper electoral Greens, while believing that we must
try to change industrial society's and our own destructive
obsessions, remain unsure whether or not this is possible. This
message, not that of optimism, should be part of any truthful message
to the electorate. Greens, as a social movement and as a political
party, need to make it clear that one of their basic messages, which
sets them apart from all other parties, is that voting Green means
LESS industrial consumer goods for those in the so-called developed
industrial societies, and a greatly increased living space for other
species. As this may not be a vote-getting message, it is absent from
the federal Green Party electoral platform in Canada.
Discussion
REVOLUTIONARY OR REFORMIST IDEAS?
Talking about climate change and peak oil is an opportunity for those
in support of deeper green thinking to take part in a discussion
which can be truly revolutionary in its implications for ecological
and social change. But this will not happen, unless ideas which
present the actual ecological and social problems which we must
confront, become part of the public discourse. For it to happen,
these ideas have to gain an expression within the green and
environmental movements and in political vehicles like the federal
and provincial Green Parties in Canada. It is to such parties,
whatever their internal contradictions - and there are many - to
which the public in Canada at the present time looks to for some
political direction in matters environmental.
But on what basis do we as Greens enter these discussions? Is the
basis one of timorous reformism - limiting ourselves to what amounts
to incrementalism (within a taken-for-granted market fundamentalism),
which is the eco-capitalism referred to in Saral Sarkar's quote
above? Do we present the view, as given in Tim Flannery's recent,
much praised book, _The Weather Makers_, that "we can all make a
difference and help combat climate change at almost no cost to our
lifestyle." (p. 6) Or do we truthfully elaborate what the actual
problems are AND have discussions about the seismic changes which are
called for within us and within Canadian society and in other countries?
Is the path forward for the federal Green Party that articulated by
leadership aspirant Elizabeth May (as expressed in a Montreal Gazette
article of May 12, 2006): "In a movement known for its share of
tree-huggers and wingnuts, May has always been mainstream, working
from the inside rather than shouting from the barricades." (I
identify myself with the tree-huggers and alleged wingnuts.) Will
Canada change in some fundamental way if the Green Party finally has
access to the leadership debates in federal elections or elects a
handful of Green MPs, if these MPs are self-muzzled within their own
thinking as to what is possible? Can industrial capitalism,
ontologically rooted in incessant economic growth, conspicuous
consumerism, and defying any sense of ecological limits here in
Canada and elsewhere, essentially reform itself? Can it do all this,
keeping in place existing social structures, while combatting climate
change and ending our basic dependence on fossil fuels? How we answer
this question is quite fundamental for the federal and provincial
Green Parties in Canada. Answering this will determine the kind of
politics we proclaim for ourselves, and for others who we ask to follow us.
We need to get the climate change/peak oil issue right in our own
minds - although there are great uncertainties - otherwise we can
betray ourselves and those we seek to influence.
OPPORTUNISM
Complicating the internal struggle within the federal Green Party
over policy differences, which are usually genuinely held, is, I
believe, the presence of a number of people who are basically members
for opportunist, self-advancement reasons. Such people see the Greens
(rightly) as an ascending political vehicle within Canadian society,
but they search us out for opportunities for personal upward
mobility. Such people seem often to lack any actual history of
environmental or social justice struggles before joining the party
and dumb down policy discussions in order, allegedly, not to
"alienate" the public.
FOLLOWING THE DEEP ECOLOGY PATH
The above quote by Arne Naess, the Norwegian founder of deep ecology,
about how our own lifestyles must be realistically attainable by the
dispossessed of the globe, offers some guidance for those who aspire
to a deeper green consciousness on climate change and the coming end
of unbridled fossil fuel consumption. Naess's quote has had a
profound impact upon me, because of its social justice connotations.
It means that it is total selfishness and discrimination on our part,
against those who have no access to our kind of lifestyle, to advance
so-called solutions to climate change which do not take into account
the poverty and living standard of all the people on Earth. Deeper
greens must not take part in climate change discussions which focus
on soft energy paths to replace fossil fuels, but which keep the
existing high energy consumption lifestyle in our country, thus
basically turning our backs on the world's dispossessed. This does
not mean that we are unconcerned about softer technologies like solar
or wind power, but it does mean that electoral Greens cannot replace
the larger issue of the basic unsustainability of industrial
capitalist society with the pretense that, by some kind of
retrofitting agenda led by electoral Greens, we can painlessly evolve
in some fundamentally new direction. One such example, advocated in
the 2006 Election Platform, were the tax shift on fossil fuels and
carbon emissions trading. As Greens, we must see the atmosphere as
part of the global common. Carbon emissions trading is just a
continuation of the ongoing enclosure movement, the attempt to assert
so-called private property rights over the commons by the rich and
the powerful. The solutions do not lie in "free" market manipulations
or in new technologies, and worshipping, as Jan Lundberg of the
magazine _Culture Change_ has said, at the feet of the "Triumvirate
of Technofixers": Amory Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin and Lester Brown.
A NEW ECONOMICS
There have been quite a number of "ecological footprint" writers,
usually quite human-centered and linking this concept to the
mythology of sustainable development. They have presented the data
that how we live in Canada or the United States, cannot be used as a
model for the four to five billion people who do not have this
"developed" lifestyle, otherwise several planets will be required.
For those who orient to deeper green thinking, part of any realistic
climate change discussion in Canada must include a world social
justice perspective. This presupposes that the excessive consumption
patterns of the HAVE countries like Canada must be drastically
reduced. We need a new kind of economics, a Right Livelihood, what
Schumacher in _Small is Beautiful_ called "Buddhist economics." As
well as stressing economic localism, as opposed to the current
globalism, Schumacher points out a very important point, applicable
to Canada's energy policy: "Non renewable goods (e.g. coal, oil,
natural gas), must be used only if they are indispensable, and then
only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for
conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of
violence..." (p. 50)
The new sustainable lifestyle we aspire to must also be possible,
with our assistance, for the have-nots of this world. This is what
Naess is referring to. Obviously this means a redistribution of
wealth on a global scale (communism is not dead in the water) AND
some considerable reduction in population numbers - including in the
high consumption countries like Canada, with social, political and
cultural policies which encourage this. This has to be boldly said by
ALL Greens and not kept as some very minor current in internal party
discussion lists, to let deeper Greens blow off some steam. It is the
responsibility of all Greens in Canada to foster such public
discussions around the climate change issue.
OTHER SPECIES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE GREENS
The above discussion only relates to HUMANS and does not take into
account, as we must, the life requirements of all the other species
which share this planet with us, plus their habitat needs. As deep
ecology supporters know, we humans are not only totally befouling our
own nest, but we have given ourselves the right to do this for all
other species. I have no idea what a sustainable human population
would be for this world - a world where poverty is eliminated - but
the discussion about the requirements for a sustainable world
population has to begin now, as the Earth's life-support systems
start to unravel around us. Canadian Greens need to look at the
ecological carrying capacity of Canada, considering the habitat needs
for all species, as well as humans, before we can form positions on
emotion-laden topics like immigration and population. Tim Flannery's
1994 book _The Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the
Australasian Lands and People_, which I highly recommend, does this
kind of population capacity study for Australia. He comes up with "an
optimum, long-term population target of 6-12 million" (p. 369),
meaning that country is already overpopulated. Here in Canada we need
to do similar work about what an optimum human population would be
and situate immigration discussions within this. As Naess and
Sessions note in the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform: "The
flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of
nonhuman life requires such a decrease." If electoral Greens do not
raise such topics, they betray the cause of being Earth and social
justice defenders, the causes for which they claim a legitimacy to speak.
RECLAIMING THE ENERGY COMMONS
Schumacher, if he were alive, would agree that in Canada today we use
oil and natural gas heedlessly and extravagantly. We do not have an
energy policy, except to supply fossil fuels to the United States.
Two thirds of Canada's oil and gas production goes to the United
States, and because of NAFTA our country is now REQUIRED to do this.
The run-away Alberta tar sands exploitation is destroying the ecology
of huge sections of that province, as well as producing large amounts
of greenhouse gases. If we want to seek a new, more localized economy
within Nature's balance, in the era of climate change and peak oil,
then Canada must terminate pumping fossil fuels into the US - the
ultimate gas guzzler and world greenhouse gas emitter. Greens must
advocate taking back into communal ownership the energy sector of our
economy. As greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 50-70 percent, if
the atmosphere of our planet is to remain hospitable to all life
forms, including humans, then boldness is called for from those who
call themselves Greens. Diane Cole, an anti-forest spray activist
then living in Nova Scotia, pointed out in 1983, "Poor leadership is
worse than no leadership at all because it lures the people to defeat
in a dead end, making the failure appear as victory - stifling
dreams, ideals, and creative possibilities."
Greens must convey the electoral message that climate change and peak
oil are calling the fossil fuel-based industrial capitalist society
into question and that a new ecological consciousness and socially
just society is on the agenda for all of us.
David Orton
June 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
