Something bothering me about the likes of 'Plane Stupid'

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
Plane Stupid
Offline
Joined: 26-10-06
Oct 27 2006 16:16
Jack wrote:
I think that one of the big problems with PS is the message is confused - one minute it's "we don't need to fly, you shouldn't fly at all, kids in Bangladesh" etc. etc. Then as soon as they're challenged on this, they try slide it into a half-arsed class argument.

OK, if we break down my arguement, I've pointed out the high percentage of unnecessary flights and explained that I think these should be done by train (45% in Europe less than 500km).

Then, I pointed out that, contrary to popular opinion, cheap fligths aren't helping the poor travel for the first time, they're helping the rich travel more. This was in response to one of the PS campaigners being called a posh cunt, and then later to accusations that taxation or similar coercive methods would hit the poor the hardest.

This is a libcom website. I can rant about fluffy squirrels and trees, but how well would that go down? Instead, I'll use readily available information, based on economic analysis of flight patterns, to demonstrate the inherently pro-rich bias of cheap flights.

Jack wrote:
I mean look back at before, he moaned about cheap flights to Canada.

Yup, I pointed out that the assumed growth rate of 50% of the rate experienced in 2004 may not be too far off, as the long haul market has started lowering the cost of flights.

Again, I would ask you how 'the poor' are expected to pay £80 each, plus the hotel bills, plus all the other costs associated with travel, plus their rent and bills and council tax on a low income wage?

Cheap flights to Canada is not about the working classes jetting off on holiday. It's about rich people taking 6 or 7 holidays a year. Just now, it's not to Spain, it's to Canada or Hong Kong or wherever else cheap flights spring up to.

And killing the planet as they do so.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Oct 27 2006 16:49

Jack and revol- please keep this civil.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Oct 27 2006 16:52

It's just a reflex now

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 27 2006 16:59

aren't we talking about the poorest 25% of the population, not the working class as a whole anyway jack?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 27 2006 17:01
Jack wrote:
He was like a really, really posh guy doing a parody of a really really posh guy, with a really fucking annoying voice, and obscenely liberal politics.

just for my own info, did u post some pics of u at ur parents house once - or was that someone else?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 27 2006 17:39
revol68 wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
Jack and revol- please keep this civil.

here, i know that it's scapegoat revol week but can I just point out that i've been nothing but civil. i mean my joke about Joss being a posh name is hardly a breach of the peace.

1) its not scapegoat revol week
2) your first post on the thread, suggesting the protestors should be imprisoned in guantanamo could be considered perhaps, hmmm, not quite the politest of contibutions.

off for my tea now, cauliflower cheese smile)

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 27 2006 21:44
revol68 wrote:
I dunno i'd imagine struggling over better public transport, shorter working weeks and a thousand other tactics and struggles that will appear on the horizon once we start struggling collectively.

pretty good, used "struggle" word three times in one sentence.

So, your plan is that first we start struggling collectively as a class and then we campaign for shorter working weeks and better public transport, and thats your suggestion as a concrete way of combatting climate change? You got to be fucking joking mate, or just not too bothered about the climate change issue to take it in any seriousness or as a matter of urgency.

I bet even Al Gore has a more convincing strategy than that!

Anyways, does anyone else have any other ideas? To help the discussion, the recommendations for approaches have to be something which can be built on immediately, not wait until collective struggles come into our culture again in few decades time or something. Maybe comrade madashell was onto something, libertarian communists really do not have ANYTHING to offer in this issue... sad

Planestupid, dont take the tone of some of the posters personally, these folks dont go out much so when they get someone visiting on the board who is not well versed in the class struggle politics, they get shot down pretty fucking fast (which is why we dont get pretty much anyone else joining the boards than already committed anarcho/communist politico geeks). You just happen to be the latest victim wink

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 27 2006 22:27
Jack wrote:
Said pics were in my Dad's house. Which is middle class. Not posh. Big difference. cool

cool mate i'm not trying to knock u just establish u def aren't in that 25%

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 06:47
JDMF wrote:
catch, your suggestions sound a bit wishful thinking to me. First you single out rush hour, presumably thinking that come the revolution people suddenly dont have to commute to work by car.

er, yeah I think in the UK at least, the majority of people wouldn't do their existing jobs at all (let alone commute to them), apart from a few people in essential industries.

Quote:
same goes for the "durable consumables", presumably you think that the product development and innovation will appear in matter of hours after the workers have taken over.

Products are developed and innovated now to be obsolescent within a few months/years and nearly impossible to repair. It takes no improvements in technology to reverse that trend, just a bit of reorganisation.

Quote:
but think that if we have only less than a decade to turn things around with carbon emissions, there is a slight chance that we might not get libertarian communism in time.

If it's that urgent then I think we're all fucked. End of. If enough people start thinking/realising it's that urgent, then libertarian communism's pretty much the only viable solution - capital won't adapt within ten years, or at least not in a way that doesn't involve eco-fascism or vast populations being written off a la New Orleans.

Quote:
One more point about the whole approach of comparing this to that carbon emission source: you are about as radical as labour government if you go down that road.
...
So rather than compare flights to "rush hour traffic", you need to come up with solutions to tackle both, remove short haul flights, or make them carbon neutral, and create alternatives to the private car in rush hour mode of transport.

OK. So Plane Stupid block runways to stop pleasurable but carbon heavy short-haul flights and they're doing something worthwhile. I mention possible ways of reducing highly stressful and carbon heavy rush-hour traffic, reducing unpaid work time, and I'm "about as radical as the Labour Government".

Quote:
Not to mention host of other areas which need to be looked into (we have discussed sustainable dietary culture before for instance).

Petroleum input into food is a mess, yeah. Locally produced bacon isn't necessarily a worse culprit than flown in fruit or soya though, or highly processed foods of any description.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 08:32
JDMF wrote:
Jack wrote:
Well, won't it do *some* of those things?

the point kinda was that they are all irreversable,

Biodiversity could repair itself in certain areas given favourable conditions, as long as there were species around elsewhere. Look at the rapidity of increase in cod stocks in fishing reserves.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 08:56
Plane Stupid wrote:

Cheap flights to Canada is not about the working classes jetting off on holiday. It's about rich people taking 6 or 7 holidays a year. Just now, it's not to Spain, it's to Canada or Hong Kong or wherever else cheap flights spring up to.

And killing the planet as they do so.

Do you know who the "working classes" are?

I earn 15K a year, pay really fucking high rent in Zone 3, and have a wife and kid, but we manage to save enough to visit my in-laws in Japan every 18-30 months - since we only pay for the flight then sleep and eat for next to nothing once we're there. If the cost of flights doubled (as they did for a while over the summer when oil prices shot up), then that's my daughter never meeting her grandparents ever again unless we took a far more expensive 3-4 months off work to take the Trans-Siberian Express, whilst paying rent, council tax, bills, on a low wage.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that you're discussing this issue with working class people who take both long and short distance flights on some kind of basis, and your generalisation of the "working classes" into some kind of undeserving poor, day trip to Clacton once a year amorphous 19th century Dickensian mass shows you really don't understand the agenda you're helping to push. The same agenda that gives people who live in Chelsea and Soho an 80% discount on the CC whilst nurses pay 8 quid a day to do night shifts.

PS, as to the rich being the only people using polluting cars, that's off as well.

SUVs (or big cars anyway) are often used as mobility vehicles, people on low incomes are also more likely to be driving older more polluting cars. One thing that definitely "only the rich" can afford is LPG and electric vehicles.

. Short haul flights are often used by the elderly and infirm when they can't manage long journeys or have accessibility issues on most forms of public transport.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 09:05
JDMF wrote:

Anyways, does anyone else have any other ideas? To help the discussion, the recommendations for approaches have to be something which can be built on immediately, not wait until collective struggles come into our culture again in few decades time or something.

I suggested one and you dismissed it as "as radical as the Labour party" earlier in the thread:

Job exchange for people with long commutes.

You post up the job you do, the area you work in, and the area you live (which is where you want to work if you're posting it up). Other people do the same thing. Then the system matches people who are travelling in opposite directions to work (or with a bit of clever programming allows for 3-or-more-way switches). You then inform your employer that to reduce your carbon footprint, you'll be swapping with an employee from another workplace so that you can both reduce your commutes. Obviously this'd be easiest in the public sector where jobs are standardised first off, but I think it's something that'd be a popular idea in its own right, outside of reducing traffic and fuel emissions.

The only people who lose are the employers in the amount of control they have over their workforce, but if we really wanted to get into "managing capital" territory, it could even be sold to them on "less tired", "more punctual (not held up in traffic)" staff.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 28 2006 09:06
Mike Harman wrote:
OK. So Plane Stupid block runways to stop pleasurable but carbon heavy short-haul flights and they're doing something worthwhile. I mention possible ways of reducing highly stressful and carbon heavy rush-hour traffic, reducing unpaid work time, and I'm "about as radical as the Labour Government".

the difference is that you try to redirect attention to a single source of carbon emissions. Planestupid would do the same mistake if they would pit one form of emissions against eachother (this is pretty bad, but dont look at that, because this is even worse etc), which is why i challenged PS when he/she made that comment about undoing all good from sustainable local commuting with one flight.

So i think you are correct in pointing out some areas like public transport, but wrong in trying to blind another one, in this case short haul flights.

Quote:
Petroleum input into food is a mess, yeah. Locally produced bacon isn't necessarily a worse culprit than flown in fruit or soya though, or highly processed foods of any description.

UK being so small, animal production relies on imported feed, large part of which is soya.

Quote:
Biodiversity could repair itself in certain areas given favourable conditions, as long as there were species around elsewhere. Look at the rapidity of increase in cod stocks in fishing reserves.

sure but you are not talking of biodiversity loss due to climate change.

In a nutshell what makes the climate change biodiversity loss worrying and inreversable is the speed of temperature rise. In "natural" temperature changes the change is so slow species can adapt to it, for instance when it warmed up after ice age plant species had centuries time to "travel" north and adapt to new conditions. With human caused climate change forrests etc do not have time to do the same which will lead to dramatic drop in biodiversity. Add to that the lack of natural south-north natural area passageways because of habitat destruction and things look pretty fucked.

And i dont think that can be reversed.

From my point of view, being such a green person, what you guys are saying is that when communism might come, it will be really shit sad

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Oct 28 2006 09:14
JDMF wrote:
To help the discussion, the recommendations for approaches have to be something which can be built on immediately, not wait until collective struggles come into our culture again in few decades time or something.

You're trying to have it both ways here, and you can't. If you're contending that capital can't deal with environmental destruction because it's founded on principles that are necessarily destructive (infinite growth or whatever), then any strategy for dealing with climate change is necessarily revolutionary. You can't criticise people for not having an 'immediate, practical' suggestion for dismantling the economic basis of our entire society, because that's what you're asking for. If you take this line then revolution is the only way forward and 'how do we stop climate change' collapses into the question of 'how do we destroy capitalism'.

If on the other hand, you believe that capital can deal with climate change, but that the effects of that on the working class are going to be brutal then it follows that the question is not 'how do we stop climate change' but 'how do we defend ourselves'. There have been a number of suggestions about that ranging from the Common Ground Collective to resistance to 'green' taxation.

As usual and laudably, you're looking for a compromise position, a way to take the best from both approaches. Usually that's a good idea, but here the underlying analyses mean that there can be no compromise between the two positions. It's either one or the other.

Quote:
Planestupid, dont take the tone of some of the posters personally, these folks dont go out much so when they get someone visiting on the board who is not well versed in the class struggle politics, they get shot down pretty fucking fast

This is not fair. He got shot down because Plane Stupid's approach is flat out dangerous for us. In it's small way it is giving ammunition to the 'green' lobby that would use, in the first instance, taxation to shift some of the costs of climate change away from production and onto consumers, in exactly the same way that the climate camp gave ammunition to the nuclear industry. I normally ignore this kind of activism because I don't think it's that important and sometimes it's even useful. This new round of environmental activism, however, is different and dangerous because there is a pre-existing script into which it fits. It's playing right into the hands of the ruling class in exactly the same way that something like Amnesty does.

The arguments over whether working class people fly or not are just irrelevant. What matters is the focus on individuals as CO2 producers and the media script into which these actions will be forced. So this

Plane Stupid wrote:
Similarly, a tax on aviation would hit the people who fly the hardest. This is mostly the better off (75% of flights are taken by people in social groups ABC).

is just froth. It doesn't matter whether ABCs or BCD's or whatever are hit hardest (we're taking our class analysis from advertising now?), what matters is the legitimisation of state action to transfer the costs of climate change to consumers. This is an important ruling class weapon which will be used against us. The fact is that the new enironmental groups are providing an important grassroots smokescreen for this weapon, and they're doing so because their analysis of the situation is hopelessly confused. I'm not going to try and find a compromise with something which I think is actively dangerous.

And now, more fucking job applications (which is why I'm only posting once or twice a day at the moment).

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 28 2006 09:28

hey, ticking_fool, isn't transfering cost to production within capitalist framework same than taxing consumption? (higher production costs trasfered immediately to end consumable prices).

So whats the difference? If you support taxing the production the end result will be the same, higher end consumable prices. To me this seems as important as the order of deck chairs on titanic.

i dont quite accept the inherent self destructive nature of capitalism, when profits are at risk, climate change will be taken more seriously, but i think we have had arguments about this from both angles on this thread and maybe just disagree on this point.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Oct 28 2006 09:54
JDMF wrote:
hey, ticking_fool, isn't transfering cost to production within capitalist framework same than taxing consumption?

This ignores the role of public subsidy and the state in propping up corporations. Organsiations of the size and massive inefficiency of corporations simply couldn't exist without significant state support through direct subsidy, indirect subsidy in things like arms manufacture, transport subsidy, legal protection and so on and so on. Free market competition hasn't determined prices or anything else since at least the twenties.

Dealing with climate change is going to be a matter of reorganising production, but if the tax burden gets significantly shifted to consumption it can be used to make the working class take all the suffering, while they fund subsidies which see the reorganising corporations make out like bandits.

Quote:
If you support taxing the production the end result will be the same, higher end consumable prices.

I don't support either because the taxation system has been used for decades now to prop up so called 'private' enterprise. Taxes are pretty much always going to hurt the working class unless there's some countervailing force in our own organisations. We don't really have those at the moment therefore we're likely to get fucked.

Quote:
i dont quite accept the inherent self destructive nature of capitalism, when profits are at risk, climate change will be taken more seriously

I don't accept this either. Capitalism has always been much smarter than we are. As I'm constantly banging on about, there has never been a more flexible and adaptable social system and there's no reason to think that it won't get over this crisis in the same way that it got over the crises of the twenties and thirties. And with similar, if not greater, levels of suffering for our class.

This is why I see organising for self defence and not getting involved in ruling class agendas for 'managing' the crisis as crucial. As I say, I don't think there's a compromise position here.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 28 2006 10:46
Mike Harman wrote:
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that you're discussing this issue with working class people who take both long and short distance flights on some kind of basis, and your generalisation of the "working classes" into some kind of undeserving poor, day trip to Clacton once a year amorphous 19th century Dickensian mass shows you really don't understand the agenda you're helping to push.

i see absolutely no evidence for this tbh catch - looks like you are making assumptions personally.

Plane Stupid - ''this is about rich people flying more, not w/c people flying one in a blue moon''

Catch - ''no, because i get to go to japan once in a while, and by the way u think the working class look like dick van dyke in mary poppins.''

Personally i think theres a bit of a jump between the 2 statements.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 28 2006 10:48
Quote:
Global warming could cut the world's annual economic output by as much as 20%, an influential report by former World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern is expected to say.

link

i tend to agree that capitalists collectively aren't suicidal lemmings, and have in the past been prepared to attack their immediate interests to preserve their class power; thus they'll probably try and mitigate climate change and force the cost onto workers:

Quote:
Many experts argue that climate change is beyond human control and the best way to tackle it is to drive forward economic growth so that development picks up pace and nations will be rich enough to pay for adaptation in the future.

wall angry

i fucking hate economists, like everything has a price ... fresh new ecosystem, how much mate?

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Oct 28 2006 12:00
Quote:
Biodiversity could repair itself in certain areas given favourable conditions, as long as there were species around elsewhere. Look at the rapidity of increase in cod stocks in fishing reserves.

PSSSFFFFFT!!! WHAT!!!!!!

Haven't you been following the cod debate!!

It's one of the major political issues of our time. Cod quotas for the whole British fleet have been lowered to 20000 tonnes, but more than that are still caught accidentally. Unless there's an immediate cessation and paid tied up in all North sea fisheries cod will never recover. It is currently showing no signs of recovery despite the nominal quotas at the moment.

In Canada the fishing lobby kept communities fishing for cod for too long. It's extinct there and is never coming back. We are seeing the same thing here with Cod. We almost had the same thing with haddock, and for the first time in recent history the fisherman voted to do the honourable thing and tie up the fleet for a year (this was 2000/2001), as long as the government was prepared to subsidize them (they wanted 50 million to save their industry and communities, and were not to fish for a whole year). Rhona Brankin (Scottish Fisheries minister at the time, and a short sighted labour scum fuck) said no, and haddock faced extinction; it was an environmental catastrohpy and yet again Central Belt labour scum had sold out the North East; fisherman then facing ruin because they couldn't land enough to make money, and because they knew their livelihood was no more with the end of haddock burnt effigies of Brankin, and even took direct action to stop fishing taking place. What saved the haddock fishery was the Norwegians. They'd wangled some kind of deal with the commision to massively up their factory shipping of sandeels. The haddock fishery was saved, and stocks of haddock recovered quickly, because of the virtuals annihilation of sand eels. Try getting your hands on some these days - they're virtually extinct.

Forward to more heroin in Peterheid...

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Oct 28 2006 12:06

The capitalists will solve global warming.

At present they all seem to have a plan. Some of which involve enormous parabolic mirrors on the poles and in space, some of which involve switing to helium 3 fusion nuclear power stations, and some involve satellites harnessing the suns rays.

I'm a lot less concerned about climate change than I am the coming crisis over peak oil, and over the destruction of natural resources. We need to get into space as a race, and fast.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Oct 28 2006 13:50

grin

Non of those things are going to happen, and definately not within the time frame needed to avert Climate Change.

The peak oil stuff is just going to be one more hammer blow. Removing oil inputs to agriculture leaves the UK with a carrying capacity of around 7 million people, and that depends on mass conversions of all available spare land to agricultural production.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 14:56
Tacks wrote:
and by the way u think the working class look like dick van dyke in mary poppins.

link?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 28 2006 15:11

Just lost a long post angry, this might not be as well thought out.

JDMF wrote:

the diference is that you try to redirect attention to a single source of carbon emissions.

No not at all. I think this boils down to about three different ways of causing pollution

1. stuff we don't want to do but have to (work, commuting)
2. Stuff that needs to be done, but is done inefficiently ("locally produced vegetables" travelling twice across the country due to supermarket distribution networks)
3. stuff we do for pleasure, that isn't particularly environmentally sustainable (fly, eat meat more than once or twice per week etc.).

3. is an easy target for groups like Plane Stupid, because it's "non-essential" (although I think we'd agree that holidays are psychologically very essential), and easy to play the guilt card. One and two are what cause the real problems, but to deal with them would require a fundamental change in social relationships, so that can be dismissed as pie in the sky or whatever. I did however try to propose something that'd deal with 1. a little bit pretty much immediately, and potentially on a class basis (although with plenty of managing capital, reduced congestion, less-tired-more-efficient workforce thrown in), and it's been ignored.

Quote:
which is why i challenged PS when he/she made that comment about undoing all good from sustainable local commuting with one flight.

Good, because that's woeful. Mine, and I'd imagine many other people's response to that, is why the fuck bother with sustainable local commuting at all then.

Quote:
So i think you are correct in pointing out some areas like public transport, but wrong in trying to blind another one, in this case short haul flights.

No I think the number of short haul flights is a lot higher than it needs to be, but the way to combat that is to fight for more holiday time and cheaper fares on trains and ferries etc. etc. not trying to moralise people out of their holidays.

Quote:
UK being so small, animal production relies on imported feed, large part of which is soya.

So do lots of vegans??? Massive consumption of animal protein is only a part of the problem with the food industry. Irrational production of foods, ridiculous transportation arrangements, monoculture etc. these apply just as much to vegetarian and vegan diets as they do to omniverous ones. Linda McCartney sausage vs. eel and mash. Tofurkey vs. Welsh lamb.

Quote:
(this is pretty bad, but dont look at that, because this is even worse etc)

wink

Quote:
From my point of view, being such a green person, what you guys are saying is that when communism might come, it will be really shit :(

Yeah it might well be. Socialism or barbarism. Bookchin said it about ecology in the '60s, in their own way the ICC say it now. I'm not convinced, but neither do I think the progression goes "capitalism >> nicer capitalism >> communism".

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 28 2006 19:53
JDMF wrote:
...i make mine carbon neutral (where is that blushing emoticon?), and i think that is not a viable strategy unless it is included in the ticket price to start with.

No, carbon offsets are a myth - yet airlines and business are embracing them as they are another way of getting the consumer to pay guilt money.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Oct 29 2006 02:42
Mike Harman wrote:
Tacks wrote:
"and by the way u think the working class look like dick van dyke in mary poppins."

link?

Mike Harman wrote:
and your generalisation of the "working classes" into some kind of undeserving poor, day trip to Clacton once a year amorphous 19th century Dickensian mass

basically.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Oct 29 2006 09:51
Meanwhile, David Milliband wrote:
Changing people's behaviour is only achieved by "market forces and price signals," Mr Miliband wrote.

He added: "As our understandings of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done."

The minister also suggests making flights subject to VAT, for either domestic flights or "better still all EU flights,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095680.stm

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 29 2006 10:52
Tacks wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Tacks wrote:
"and by the way u think the working class look like dick van dyke in mary poppins."

link?

Mike Harman wrote:
and your generalisation of the "working classes" into some kind of undeserving poor, day trip to Clacton once a year amorphous 19th century Dickensian mass

basically.

Oh OK, I thought you meant I thought that.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 11:08
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
JDMF wrote:
...i make mine carbon neutral (where is that blushing emoticon?), and i think that is not a viable strategy unless it is included in the ticket price to start with.

No, carbon offsets are a myth - yet airlines and business are embracing them as they are another way of getting the consumer to pay guilt money.

aye, but if you want to support reforestation programmes, you may as well anyway carbon offset or not. Carbon offsetting would only add like £8 on average european flight, so it would not break anyones bank who are going on a flight anyway.

so, whats our tally so far?

We have suggestions about helping people in disaster areas after thousands have died, homes and lives destroyed and stuff like that (madashell and ticking_fools suggestion).

We have suggestions on fighting any anti-consumption or carbin emission measures which would hurt working class (that meaning local working class here, no mention about solidarity with the tens of thousands already dying as a result of rapidly changing climate conditions because those are mostly elsewhere far away).

And we have a single concrete suggestion from catch about job swapping and a few woolly mentions about better public transport.

Anyone still suprised why climate campaigners dont bother with class struggle anarchist/lib com analysis?

Perhaps one problem is that since the userbase on this board is quite small we just dont have the expertese about the issues to come up with anything sensible, its just hard held theories mirrored to a problem which doesnt quite fit and as a result we get empty strategies and positions. No expertese about the issues, but plenty of expertese of shooting people down wink

This thread has motivated me to look more into the issue and i've been reading loads Rising Tide and other similar kind of stuff now, which looks pretty damn good.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Oct 29 2006 11:57
JDMF wrote:
no mention about solidarity with the tens of thousands already dying as a result of rapidly changing climate conditions because those are mostly elsewhere far away

This is cheap. How is it acting in solidarity to let yourself get fucked over for the benefit of existing institutions? In fact, more than this, this argument is the same liberal shit that drives Make Poverty History and all the rest of that crap. The 'west' should take its responsibilities seriously and start making sacrifices for the poor starving Africans. Ignoring the fact that the 'poor starving Africans' and the vast majority in the west are being fucked over by the same groups.

Look at the front page of the BBC website today and you get these three headlines:

Quote:
Climate change threat to poverty fight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6092564.stm

Quote:
Global warming 'threat to growth'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6093396.stm

Quote:
Miliband 'draws up green taxes'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095680.stm

For the liberals it's feel guilty about 'the starving Africans', for the business types it's worry about the profit margin and maybe tighten our belts, and then government steps in to manage our behaviour by transferring wealth. All of this shit is being pushed by government and 'climate campaigners' at the same time.

Quote:
Anyone still suprised why climate campaigners dont bother with class struggle anarchist/lib com analysis?

Because they're campaigners. They have nothing to offer but asking nicely or not so nicely for government to 'do something'. And it will when it's in its interests, and that something will be to fuck us harder to preserve its position.

The first rule is always do no harm and I think it's pretty clear that most if not all existing environmental groups have been coopted to a reactionary agenda which is about transferring as many of the costs of tackling climate change to the people who are already suffering its worst effects. Unless these groups can break away from this agenda, which they don't seem to be showing any sign of doing, they have to be regarded as part of the problem. I personally don't think it's worth engaging with them, but try if you want and it'd be nice to be proved wrong.

We're also in no position as a class to make substantial changes to our economy through direct action. We can do a bit here and there in our workplaces (as you've talked about before), but 90% cuts are not something we can do.

Therefore the priority has to be self-defence. It's not fucking pretty, but that's where we are. No matter how much you might not like that, no matter how much you might want to 'do something', we face the situation as it is, not as we'd like it to be. That means we're looking at a continuum of actions from fighting bin taxes and things like that, old style environmental direct action where appropriate (Rossport for example), and the high profile Common Ground style things when the shit really hits the fan. Alongside that we carry on doing what we always do and hope we can be part of building up enough power in the class to go on the offensive. I don't see anything else that doesn't play straight into the hands of the ruling class and do far more harm than good.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 12:20
ticking_fool wrote:
The first rule is always do no harm and I think it's pretty clear that most if not all existing environmental groups have been coopted to a reactionary agenda which is about transferring as many of the costs of tackling climate change to the people who are already suffering its worst effects.

if my comment was cheap, so is yours, c'moon man, who are feeling the effects at the moment? Are they the same people using the short haul flights, use private transport and enjoy cheap consumables? I think you got the groups mixed up, or trying to build a massive bridge between UK working class and where the climate change is killing tens of thousands (new orleans was an exception on this).

By opposing carbon emission controls as a matter or principle without any idea of alternatives you are getting with some seriously strange bedfellows, yet you are arguing that mine and similar positions are somehow compromised because it is similar to some liberal greenie folks - thats a contradiction.

maybe we should talk about more concrete issues because i feel that the differences in politics are highlighted here only because we talk in such abstract terms, as in non-existant collective action? I mean would there be any real differences in the way we act at workplace to reduce energy consumption and waste, or in our personal life?