I'm working on a review of Klein's books, but my health is preventing me from completing it. What I think I will end up doing is a very short piece, where I link to some things that have already been written and add what I think are the missing pieces that other reviews have not dealt with. But I do want to point out one false premise: Yes Klein supports a carbon tax, but not as a prime or only solution. She also supports massive public investment and regulation - in short all three legs of a solution. There is a huge difference between *focusing* on a carbon tax, and supporting it as one piece of a larger solution. Klein's book takes the latter position, not the former. I do have some criticism that is somewhat different from any other I have seen. But I think much of the existing critques I've seen both from Big Green and from the left are wrong. (Bias alter: Klein was influence by my own book "Solving the Climate Crisis Prager(2012), cites it in her own, and has given me a blurb.)
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Joseph Green <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 11/22/14 9:31 AM, Carrol Cox wrote: > > >> > > >> The fact that former Mayor Bloomberg could join the climate march > ought > to > > >> generate some caution. > > > > > > [Louis Proyect wrote] I agree with Carrol. We need a communistic > climate > change movement led > > > by fighting detachments of an aroused proletariat. > > > [Marvin Gandall wrote] > > Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists > > outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and > > unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. > > Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the > > bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to > fall > > in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become > > more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of > > energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do > what > > previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms > of > > energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled > > out. > > Carrol Cox's opposition to the environmental movement is completely wrong, > would doom the left to impotence, and would increase the danger of > environmental collapse. But it's also wrong to be complacent about the > bourgeois wing of the environmental movement. Yes, even today a section of > the bourgeoisie is concerned about the environment, and more will be in the > future. But establishment environmentalism has put forward futile > marketplace > solutions. Indeed, it's measures aren't simply weak or inadequate, but some > of them have made things worse. > > * There's the corn ethanol fiasco. This is an example of a section of the > bourgeoisie realizing it can make a profit from certain measures, and it > has > been a fiasco. > > * There was the promotion of biofuel from palm oil. This has helped > accelerate the devastation of the rain forests. > > * There is cap and trade, which was a fiasco in Europe under Kyoto. > > * There is the carbon offset program, which isn't simply weak or > ineffective, > but has done environmental harm in various ways. > > * There is the promotion of nuclear power by various bourgeois > environmentalists. > > * There is even the promotion of geo-engineering, which promises disasters > of > its own. Why let global warming destroy the planet, when the bourgeoisie > can > do it directly with geo-engineering? > > * And so on... > > One of the positive points of Naomi Klein's book was the chapter on "Big > Green", the large bourgeois environmental organizations. These > organizations > even have financial deals with the fossil fuel companies. The more I see > the > issue of bourgeois environmentalism avoided in this discussion, the more I > appreciate that Naomi Klein devotes some attention to it and is angry about > it. > > Another useful exposure of bourgeois environmentalism is in the book "Green > gone wrong: Dispatches from the front lines of eco-capitalism" by Heather > Rogers. She shows, for example, concretely how various fair trade plans, > supposed to be ecologically friendly, don't help either the small peasant > producer or the environment. > > Neither Klein nor Rogers have a clear plan on how to build an effective > section of the environmental movement consciously independent of Big Green. > But their books help show why this is needed. The left must not simply > participate in the environmental movement, but build up a working-class > section of the movement, which doesn't simply cheer the bourgeois > environmentalists on, but has a separate program for what measures need to > be > taken in order to effectively fight the environmental crisis. > > So far, even the more radical and militant section of the environmental > movement, a section which has carried out many excellent actions, generally > won't directly take on Big Green and has connections with the bourgeois > environmentalists through Al Gore or various foundations, etc. Even the > section that criticizes market measures in general, generally supports the > carbon tax as supposedly something else. This amounts, in practice, to a > tacit alliance with the market fundamentalism of the bourgeois > environmentalists. Such environmentalists as Timothy Flannery (who was a > Green Party activist at one time, but I don't know what has become of him) > worry about planning being a "carbon dictatorship" (Flannery's term). The > major emphasis on setting the "carbon price" is an attempt to avoid the > "carbon dictatorship" through a price mechanism; it is a tacit alliance > (and > sometimes an open and direct alliance) with bourgeois environmentalism; and > it means evading the need to fight neo-liberalism. (The one correct thing > about Shane Mage's comment was that he directly showed the market nature of > the carbon tax.) > > Carrol Cox concludes from the need to oppose bourgeois environmentalism > that > all environmentalism is bourgeois, and that we can and should ignore it. > That > is a fatal error. In fact, Carrol Cox's abstention from the environmental > movement would turn it over to the hands of bourgeois environmentalism, and > thus maximize the chance of environmental catastrophe. The left should take > part in the the environmental movement, but it should develop a > working-class > section of the environmental movement, working-class not just in > composition > but in its opposition to the mistaken orientations of Big Green. > > -- Joseph Green > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
