Something bothering me about the likes of 'Plane Stupid'

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 12:23

Solidarity with the third world, higher gas bills NOW!

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 12:28
madashell wrote:
Solidarity with the third world, higher gas bills NOW!

how about better housing, efficient heating, insulation and so on leading to reduced heating costs and energy consumption? Would you be against those as well?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 12:29
JDMF wrote:
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).

New Orleans wasn't a one of exception though, it's something that's going to become increasingly common as the effects of climate change become more severe. Climate change isn't some far off, emphereal phenomenon that will only hurt some liberal humanist conception of 'the poor'.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 12:32
JDMF wrote:
how about better housing, efficient heating, insulation and so on leading to reduced heating costs and energy consumption? Would you be against those as well?

Of course I wouldn't, but I happen to think it is a mistake for class struggle anarchists to piggy back on this green liberal agenda of higher and higher 'green taxes'. Whether you accept it or not, this is the very essence of the ruling class passing along the consequences of it's actions to us, they fuck up the environment, we pay to clean it up. Fuck that.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 12:36
madashell wrote:
JDMF wrote:
how about better housing, efficient heating, insulation and so on leading to reduced heating costs and energy consumption? Would you be against those as well?

Of course I wouldn't, but I happen to think it is a mistake for class struggle anarchists to piggy back on this green liberal agenda of higher and higher 'green taxes'. Whether you accept it or not, this is the very essence of the ruling class passing along the consequences of it's actions to us, they fuck up the environment, we pay to clean it up. Fuck that.

so wait a minute, we have been at eachothers throaths about this, and now you are saying that ok, those measures which are the most efficient ways of cutting emissions in housing are something you would support.

So why not say it? Thats exactly the type of things i have been fishing for here.

now what you are doing is positioning yourself as someone with absolutely no ideas, suggestions or strategy apart from opposing measures and then cleaning up the mess after the fact.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 12:55
JDMF wrote:
so wait a minute, we have been at eachothers throaths about this, and now you are saying that ok, those measures which are the most efficient ways of cutting emissions in housing are something you would support.

So why not say it? Thats exactly the type of things i have been fishing for here.

now what you are doing is positioning yourself as someone with absolutely no ideas, suggestions or strategy apart from opposing measures and then cleaning up the mess after the fact.

All I've said is that I'm opposed to any measure that attempts to pass the cost of climate change along to us. I don't see what's so objectionable about that.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 12:59
madashell wrote:
All I've said is that I'm opposed to any measure that attempts to pass the cost of climate change along to us. I don't see what's so objectionable about that.

and that all we can do is fight these measures or organise response after disasters (which by the way is a wrong way to look at climate change because the biggest death toll doesnt come from spectacular disasters). It has taken me two days to fish any concrete suggestions on what kinds of measures you would support smile

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 13:10
JDMF wrote:
and that all we can do is fight these measures or organise response after disasters (which by the way is a wrong way to look at climate change because the biggest death toll doesnt come from spectacular disasters). It has taken me two days to fish any concrete suggestions on what kinds of measures you would support :)

We could also struggle for the kind of things you're talking about, but I'm skeptical of the likelihood of success in the current climate (no pun intended) of low struggle.

And I never said that we should limit ourselves to responding to "spectacular disasters", by the way.

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Oct 29 2006 13:18
JDMF wrote:
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?

These differences are fundamental though. As I say, I really do not think that there's a compromise here.

Quote:
c'moon man, who are feeling the effects at the moment?

All the people where I used to live in Wales who weren't insured during the floods six years ago and are now refused insurance on the grounds that they're a flood risk. There are still people I know stuck in B&Bs. It's not on the same scale as your island disappearing under water or a six year drought, but it's on the same continuum. More than that, I live in Liverpool. It's a low lying city with no flood defences and a reputation for a restive working class surrounded by TA bases and police weapons caches (seriously, I'm sure there's way more here than anywhere else). The New Orleans scenario doesn't look too far off from where I'm sitting within fifteen minutes walk of a huge police station, two TA bases and a tidal river (probably take me a bit longer to get to the river, actually).

Even if no one in Europe had been hit by the direct effects and it was all people in Africa, I still don't see why solidarity with them would mean lining up with the fuckers that did the damage in the first place, to our own detriment.

Quote:
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.

No it's not. My position is that both the right and left wings of the ruling class are using climate change as a way to attack us - either through increased militarisation in pursuit of 'energy security' or through shifting the cost of any economic changes to the the working class. I'm saying that we shouldn't be lining up with any of them and instead looking to our own interests, which at the moment are primarily about defending ourselves. It's similar to the arguments about Lebanon from a while ago. You don't cheerlead for the lesser evil, there's going to be plenty of people doing that already.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 29 2006 13:26
Dundee_United wrote:

PSSSFFFFFT!!! WHAT!!!!!!

Haven't you been following the cod debate!!

Not in loads of detail no. I read a few things about fishing reserves (which aren't really happening properly, but there was one set up that worked well), where stocks improved quite quickly, and which had a knock-on effect on areas outside the reserve. I know things are awful and unlikely to change, but JDMF was talking about a libertarian communist society being able to reverse the trend of reduced biodiversity or not. The rapid improvement in areas where there was a moratorium on fishing is encouraging.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 29 2006 13:45
JDMF wrote:

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 ;)

JDMF, I don't know if you've ever read urban much, but some of the best stuff I've seen around this was by Bernie Gunther. A few threads, some of them here:http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=1276847

He's very interested in both peak oil and climate change, and has done a fair bit of research into food production - looking at low-petroleum dependent methods, trying to update some of Kropotkin's research in FFW and tCoB and Bookchin's Social Ecology/Post Scarcity stuff etc.

A very short summary would be: micro-industry, market/urban gardening/permaculture etc., energy-efficient housing, district heating - all of which he reckons could be started by communities now and as well as ameliorating carbon emissions, would massively reduce dependence on fossil fuels for energy and increase independence. He'd be the first to say it'd require a social revolution to be implemented though, due to the massive resistance from capital it'd come up against even at the first baby steps.

For example - replace individual combi-boilers/immersion heaters with communal heating systems. Either big municipal boilers, or to almost eliminate carbon emissions - geo-thermal heating with pipes placed a few metres below ground in order to take advantage of surface heat differentials; or biomass heating with the pipes going through massive communal compost bins. Or more likely a combination of those and other things.

Again, fuck all chance of this happening unless:

1. There's communal ownership of all the housing which is going to be converted. This means either entire blocks on estates, or entire rows of terraces at a minimum. The prerequisite to that is kicking out ALMOs, Wimpeys, slumlords etc. etc. whereas we all know they're making massive advances at the moment.

2. Enough skilled labour to convert dozens of homes at the same time, and to build those heating systems - ideally pre-fab/mass produced to reduce wastage. At the moment we have housing stock falling apart, new housing built cheap, cheerful, overpriced and generally self-contained apart from "service charges", and the only capital investment in social housing coming from privatisation and enforced debt (the 90 million loan ALMOs get if they get a 2* rating, that for some reason is never called a loan).

Any of these measures are simply not going to be possible without a massive change in social relations. Like Ticking Fool says, the best we can do is try to find strategies for self-defense against the worst effects when they come - which might involve trying to reduce energy dependency in our communities but that is a fuck of a long way off.

Apart from all the recent flooding in low-lying areas of the UK, we also have Canvey Island which was under-water in the '70s iirc. Also worth pointing out that New Orleans was on a flood plain that had been over-developed - a big reason why the effects of the flood were so serious, since there was no drain-off. On a much smaller scale, the Lea Valley - including Hackney Marshes, are about to be massively over-developed for the Olympics, and happen to be in a similar demographic area to those who were left for dead in New Orleans. Whether it's particularly dangerous or not I dunno, but there's a big number of "luxury"/shared ownership riverside/canalside developments on brownfield sites that alongside the existing housing estates would be the first to get hit if the whole area flooded.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 29 2006 15:27

Speaking of bernie gunther, he posted this on urban, which is interesting, to say the least.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 16:09
Mike Harman wrote:
For example - replace individual combi-boilers/immersion heaters with communal heating systems. Either big municipal boilers, or to almost eliminate carbon emissions - geo-thermal heating with pipes placed a few metres below ground in order to take advantage of surface heat differentials; or biomass heating with the pipes going through massive communal compost bins. Or more likely a combination of those and other things.

Again, fuck all chance of this happening unless:

1. There's communal ownership of all the housing which is going to be converted. This means either entire blocks on estates, or entire rows of terraces at a minimum. The prerequisite to that is kicking out ALMOs, Wimpeys, slumlords etc. etc. whereas we all know they're making massive advances at the moment.

2. Enough skilled labour to convert dozens of homes at the same time, and to build those heating systems - ideally pre-fab/mass produced to reduce wastage. At the moment we have housing stock falling apart, new housing built cheap, cheerful, overpriced and generally self-contained apart from "service charges", and the only capital investment in social housing coming from privatisation and enforced debt (the 90 million loan ALMOs get if they get a 2* rating, that for some reason is never called a loan).

Any of these measures are simply not going to be possible without a massive change in social relations.

good stuff catch - one comment though, many of the things you listed are already in use in scandinavian countries (communal heating systems, often using cooling water from power stations piped to urban areas heating system), ground heating has been in use for decades, and of course houses and much better built, insulated and in most new houses even the heat from extracted air is utilised and used to heat houses, triple glazing with special gas insulation between two layers and so on and so on.

And all this without any real change in social relations, just a bit more collectively thinking culture.

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Oct 29 2006 20:54
Mike Harman wrote:
On a much smaller scale, the Lea Valley - including Hackney Marshes, are about to be massively over-developed for the Olympics, and happen to be in a similar demographic area to those who were left for dead in New Orleans.

To say nothing about all the Prescottvilles upriver from the Thames Barrier!

regards,

Martin

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Oct 30 2006 02:44
martinh wrote:

To say nothing about all the Prescottvilles upriver from the Thames Barrier!

regards,

Martin

Yep! Was going to mention Essex, but I only know the non-Thames bit really. Could easily be a real mess, in say, 2013 onwards wink

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Oct 31 2006 07:01

In the '70s with big increases in energy prices people refused to pay energy bills. What's the chance of this kind of thing nowadays given the high "cost" of fossil fuel energy? Basically hold out 'till they start building renewable energy plants, etc. Is it possible/probable? Would it keep both the immediate action and the social movement camps happy?

caitlin69
Offline
Joined: 26-10-06
Oct 31 2006 07:48

hay U lot, U want a plan-neat 4 future generations of workers 2 work on oar knot? individualizing problems really aint gonna work atmo, we aint got time 4 that, we have been slumbering 4 too long.
and by the way, can the concept of syndicalism be stretched to include the idea of freely associating around other interests apart from straight WORK?

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Oct 31 2006 11:24

Hello caitlin.

1. Please don't write in that way, it makes me want to stab someone
2. Yes, syndicalism generally does mean organising around communities (therefore environmental concerns included) as well as workplaces- this is a common myth that anarchosyndicalists often have to displel.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 31 2006 19:31
caitlin69 wrote:
hay U lot, U want a plan-neat 4 future generations of workers 2 work on oar knot?

¿Habla inglés? :?