Comments on: A Question of Priorities http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/ If there wasn't one before, it's time we started it... Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:02:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Philip Ward http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-4148 Philip Ward Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:00:26 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-4148 Roman Krznaric uses his experience of one conference to launch a general attack on "the left", questioning its belief in climate change. I think this is slightly ridiculous political point-scoring. Firstly, this gathering was not necessarily that socialist: it seems to have been organised by the South-East region of the TUC. For all the author knows, the organisers took an explicit decision to exclude climate change for their own political reasons. The decisions of the organisers and the views of some of the participants don't necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone at the conference. There is no way you can use the fact that one possibly-left-wing conference failed to have a workshop on climate change to tar the whole of "the left". Did the author attend every workshop to check that no-one discussed climate change? One left-wing-supported event that is very important, as it represents one of the first attempts to get climate change discussed at the base of the UK trade union movement, is the Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference at ULU on February 9th. For more details see www.campaigncc.org/ Readers who care to look on the web can find lots of discussion and left-wing activity on climate change. On the question of Venezuela. Firstly, it might be useful to read here, what Green Party Principal Speaker Derek Wall says about Venezuela: http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/green_venezuela_01456.html I think he gets the emphasis about right. He shows how Latin America has been subject to US oppression and exploitation and how the Bolivarian revolution is challenging that. This revolution faces numerous enemies - including a large middle class, fired up by US propaganda and dirty tricks, and controlling large sections of the media. I think it is fair to say that if it wasn't for the oil revenues, the revolution could well have collapsed. In my opinion, if the Bolivarian revolution leads to the overthrow of capitalism in Venezuela (still a very long shot), then it will be oil money bloody well spent. And it will do a lot more for defeating climate change to take a country out of the capitalist "endless growth" orbit, directly challenging US hegemony, than closing down a few oil wells. Who would the author rather met current oil demand (because that's "all" the oil suppliers are doing)? The Saudi regime? The US and UK oil companies (Venezuela's is nationalised)? Would he want extraction from the Alberta tar sands to be expanded as a result of Venezuela shutting off its oil production, financing a government that has given up even on its Kyoto commitments and causing far greater pollution? I really think these ill-informed knee-jerk anti-socialist responses should stop. We've had fifty years of them, starting with the likes of Ritchie Calder, moving through the Ehrlichs and up to the present. It is a myth that needs challenging that socialists have contributed nothing to fighting ecological degradation and climate change. I have one question for those who think socialism has nothing to do with climate change: how can capitalism exist without "growth"? Roman Krznaric uses his experience of one conference to launch a general attack on “the left”, questioning its belief in climate change. I think this is slightly ridiculous political point-scoring. Firstly, this gathering was not necessarily that
socialist: it seems to have been organised by the South-East region of the TUC. For all the author knows, the organisers took an explicit decision to exclude climate change for their own political reasons. The decisions of the organisers and the views of some of the participants don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone at the conference.
There is no way you can use the fact that one possibly-left-wing conference failed to have a workshop on climate change to tar the whole of “the left”. Did the author attend every workshop to check that no-one discussed climate change?

One left-wing-supported event that is very important, as it represents one of the first attempts to get climate change discussed at the base of the UK trade union movement, is the Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference at ULU on February 9th. For more details see http://www.campaigncc.org/ Readers who care to look on the web can find lots of discussion and left-wing activity on climate change.

On the question of Venezuela. Firstly, it might be useful to read here, what Green Party Principal Speaker Derek Wall says about Venezuela:

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/green_venezuela_01456.html

I think he gets the emphasis about right. He shows how Latin America has been subject to US oppression and exploitation and how the Bolivarian revolution is challenging that. This revolution faces numerous enemies - including a large middle class, fired up by US propaganda and dirty tricks, and controlling large sections of the media. I think it is fair to say that if it wasn’t for the oil revenues, the revolution could well have collapsed. In my opinion, if the Bolivarian revolution leads to the overthrow of capitalism in Venezuela (still a very long shot), then it will be oil money bloody well spent. And it will do a lot more for defeating climate change to take a country out of the capitalist “endless growth” orbit, directly challenging US hegemony, than closing down a few oil wells. Who would the author rather met current oil demand (because that’s “all” the oil suppliers are doing)? The Saudi regime? The US and UK oil companies (Venezuela’s is nationalised)? Would he want extraction from the Alberta tar sands to be expanded as a result of
Venezuela shutting off its oil production, financing a government that has given up even on its Kyoto commitments and causing far greater pollution?

I really think these ill-informed knee-jerk anti-socialist responses should stop. We’ve had fifty years of them, starting with the likes of Ritchie Calder, moving through the Ehrlichs and up to the present. It is a myth that needs challenging that socialists have contributed nothing to fighting ecological degradation and climate change. I have one question for those who think socialism has nothing to do with climate change: how can capitalism exist without “growth”?

]]> By: Matt Munro http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3561 Matt Munro Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:24:44 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3561 The problem of "climate change" (if there is one, and I'm not convinced) is really the problem of population growth, especially in pre-industrial, third world countries. What you are calling "human development issues" will make the problem worse, as will any form of carbon trading, which is really global wealth redistribution with a green hat on, and will only incentivise population growth. If you want to boil it down to a single, all embracing, coherent and interconnected issue, it is population growth I agree that the pick and mix approach to "issues", as opposed to the genuine ideological divides, is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution, but as the progressive left are champions of post modernism in all things, they must take the blame for that. The problem of “climate change” (if there is one, and I’m not convinced) is really the problem of population growth, especially in pre-industrial, third world countries. What you are calling “human development issues” will make the problem worse, as will any form of carbon trading, which is really global wealth redistribution with a green hat on, and will only incentivise population growth. If you want to boil it down to a single, all embracing, coherent and interconnected issue, it is population growth
I agree that the pick and mix approach to “issues”, as opposed to the genuine ideological divides, is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution, but as the progressive left are champions of post modernism in all things, they must take the blame for that.

]]> By: Keith Kahn-Harris http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3555 Keith Kahn-Harris Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:54:25 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3555 Tough questions Nick. I'm not sure I can answer them just yet. I wanted to raise a question rather than an answer... Tough questions Nick. I’m not sure I can answer them just yet. I wanted to raise a question rather than an answer…

]]> By: Nick http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3530 Nick Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:22:53 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/09/a-question-of-priorities/#comment-3530 Why exactly do you assume that all these agenda must all be mutually consistent and compatible just because they all happen to be held by various elements of a self-defined progressive left? Unless you are suggesting there is some sort of perfect acquisition of "good" political beliefs conjured up with the magic words "progressive left", then you might just as easily be left with a set of competing political beliefs. Perhaps you have to decide - whether the average Chinese family deserve access to a fridge in return for allowing the world to warm by 1 or 2 degrees, or perhaps living standards need to be halted because those 1 or 2 degrees are too crucial to gain. in other words, what if the left really is a smorgasbord of specialist causes that all happen to oppose so-called "neo-liberalism". If, for example, market forces turned out to be the best method of improving the global environment and western corporations started leading the way with green technologies, would the environment really be a left wing shibbolith for all that much longer? Why exactly do you assume that all these agenda must all be mutually consistent and compatible just because they all happen to be held by various elements of a self-defined progressive left? Unless you are suggesting there is some sort of perfect acquisition of “good” political beliefs conjured up with the magic words “progressive left”, then you might just as easily be left with a set of competing political beliefs. Perhaps you have to decide - whether the average Chinese family deserve access to a fridge in return for allowing the world to warm by 1 or 2 degrees, or perhaps living standards need to be halted because those 1 or 2 degrees are too crucial to gain.

in other words, what if the left really is a smorgasbord of specialist causes that all happen to oppose so-called “neo-liberalism”. If, for example, market forces turned out to be the best method of improving the global environment and western corporations started leading the way with green technologies, would the environment really be a left wing shibbolith for all that much longer?

]]>