On 6/25/07, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ecology movement, particularly as it focuses on global warming, proceeds on the assumption that many nations, constituting sharply conflicting interests, and many capitalist groups, constituting sharply conflicting interests, can, under present global political and economic conditions, come to shared policies applied globally to control global warming. This is not going to happen.
why? according to Al Gore, so far the problem of fluorocarbons -- and the thinning of the ozone layer -- has been deal with successfully. It's probably not _that_ successful an effort, but it indicates that the "no change is going to happen" line is a bit strong. It's true that our economy is more addicted to hydrocarbons than to fluorocarbons, but "never say never." Barry Commoner argues that our current economic system is pretty good at solving environmental problems, but it only deals with the ones that get the most attention from grassroots movements (and thus from governments). Businesses compensate by finding new ways to pollute, by moving to new locales with fewer anti-pollution controls, etc.
The effort needs to continue but leftists engaged in it should do their thinking in terms of building movements which can best confront the problems inevitable under conditions of global warming,
a long-term perspective is good (as long as it's not dominated by doom and gloom) but can the US left even organize its way out of a paper bag at this poing?
and not deceive themselves with the belief that popular movements can force capitalist regimes to deal with problems which are inherently unmangageable under capitalism.
"inherently"? I'm sure that the US cappos can afford to cut hydocarbon emissions -- by making workers pay. and/or by moving in the direction of a more centrally-planned capitalism. -- Jim Devine / "The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin
