Action to address climate change requires a break with the profit and growth drive
 |
| Photo by Geoffrey Whiteway |
Lisbeth Latham
As the Morrison government continues its determined defence of fossil fuel industries, there has been a range of attempts to justify a shift away from Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels- not just for its domestic energy production, but also as a significant source of export revenue. While many of the arguments focus on the environmental impact of Australia’s current policy settings and their potential flow-on effects on both life and the economy, some stakeholders have sought to shift the government’s position and build broader support for action by instead focusing on the missed economic opportunities of not moving to quickly build and expand production capacity and technology in the renewable energy sector. I believe this orientation, which seeks to win support for climate action on the basis of the opportunity for growth and economic expansion, is deeply flawed and actually undermines attempts to build serious and determined responses to the climate crisis.
Urgent need for action
Repeated reports on the state of the earth’s climate have made it clear that warming, ice sheet melting, and extreme weather events are all going to be worse than what had been projected in earlier modelling. According to the projections of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report “6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are set to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C”. In addition, “impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence)”. In order to avoid a 1.5-degree-celsius increase in average global temperatures compared to 1850-1900, “we need to see a reduction in emissions of “CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). Even if this reduction in emissions is achieved, the report’s modelling suggests that the risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree target would remain. Furthermore, large-scale singular events like the disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would continue to occur, reflecting the “relatively large, abrupt and sometimes irreversible changes in systems that are caused by global warming”.
As Australia continues to feel the disastrous effects of global warming, the Morrison government has become increasingly vocal and intransigent in its denial of human-induced climate change. Although some inner metropolitan ministers have indicated support for net-zero emissions in the distant future, the LNP, and, to a lesser extent, the ALP, are wedded to the extractive industries. These industries, which notably include extractive fossil fuel, comprise one of the dominant sectors of Australian monopoly capital. For this reason, we see MPs in both the LNP and ALP who actively talk up the continued necessity of fossil fuels, albeit at times conceding the need for “clean” fossil fuels, in Australia’s energy mix. However, most of these arguments rely on talking points regarding both fossil fuels and renewables that were at best only factually correct decades ago - most notably with regards to the cost of power and the reliability of renewables but are now just flat-out lies.
The government’s resistance to climate action has inspired some sections of the climate movement to build the narrative that Australia is missing an opportunity to shift its economic base and become a “renewable energy powerhouse” or to argue for changes that simply shift the source of energy, without reducing power requirements, such with the push to move towards electric vehicles replacing fossil fuel-powered cars. Notable examples include the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Climate Council.
Undoubtedly, it is possible for Australia to play an important role in shifting the world’s energy production base to beyond net-zero, where we are releasing less carbon than the planet's capacity to remove it from the atmosphere. However, there are a number of problems with tying the need for climate action to drive up profits for capital.
We know that in order to sufficiently reduce emissions we need a global reduction in emissions. However, the Global North, which includes Australia, disproportionately produces greenhouse gases so it is these economies that must drive emissions reduction. We also know that the Global South is understandably trying to increase its energy production capacity to boost living standards and productive capacity in order to better meet the needs of their populations. Whilst this growth will need to priortise social goods over boosting individual consumer consumption, it is of central importance that the lead on this shift be taken by the Global North. The Global South should be supported in achieving this through a mass increase in renewable energy capacity by imperialist economies such as Australia. However, unlike with what we have seen with limited availability of vaccines in the Global South due to protecting the IP of pharmaceutical companies, this exchange needs to be based on genuine solidarity, not boomerang aid plans aimed at stripping the Global South of its wealth - a process that has continued unabated for more than 500 years.
The climate crisis is not just about emission levels but is a reflection of capitalist social relations. These relations are based on a constant drive to build profitability and result in massive wastage. This is not only in the form of overproduction but in mechanisms that drive consumption above what is necessary to sustain life, pushing the planet’s resources to their limits - such as built-in obsolescence which ensures shorter than necessary life to goods. For this reason, responses to the challenge of climate change can’t be premised on continuing with a profit-first approach to the economy, which is a primary driver of push around the use of cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens, even if these investments are really speculative Ponzi schemes, which require massive power consumption and have caused power crises in country after country. Either we seek to expand profits and continue on our express train to totally exhaust the planet’s resources, or make the changes necessary to have a sustainable economy that meets human needs. If we opt for the first approach we make it harder to make the argument for the need to move away from growth, which is just as essential to the planet’s survival as addressing climate change. We need to be clear about the measures that are necessary, and this includes seeking to achieve climate action based on degrowth, which has been defined as “voluntary transition towards a just, participatory and ecologically sustainable society”
Finally, advocating for action based on its economic potential accepts the fundamental capitalist logic for determining action. That is the reason that capitalists and their governments have delayed action has been based on an economic judgement that it is better for the economy to not take action. Arguing that there is money to be made from climate action, simply takes this logic and flips it. In doing so advocates of this position help to undermine their own position should the promise of jobs and profits fall short.
We need to reject the premise that action should be driven by what is profitable and instead argue for a position that prioritises effective action to limit climate damage and envisions a society that ensures a decent quality of life for everyone, whatever the cost.
In saying this, I recognise that actors such as the Climate Centre and the WWF operate within the framework of the capitalist growth drive. So my argument is not primarily aimed at them. Instead, it is aimed at those in the movement who are open to the reality that we are pushing towards the planet’s limits and calling on them to embrace and argue for a climate strategy based on degrowth. The louder this voice is the greater the chance we have of building a climate movement that meets the challenges we face and to of lesser importance pull the more conservative voices of the existing movement into having to address and listen to our arguments and join us in saving the planet.
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
Read more...
As the Morrison government continues its determined defence of fossil fuel industries, there has been a range of attempts to justify a shift away from Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels- not just for its domestic energy production, but also as a significant source of export revenue. While many of the arguments focus on the environmental impact of Australia’s current policy settings and their potential flow-on effects on both life and the economy, some stakeholders have sought to shift the government’s position and build broader support for action by instead focusing on the missed economic opportunities of not moving to quickly build and expand production capacity and technology in the renewable energy sector. I believe this orientation, which seeks to win support for climate action on the basis of the opportunity for growth and economic expansion, is deeply flawed and actually undermines attempts to build serious and determined responses to the climate crisis.
Urgent need for action
Repeated reports on the state of the earth’s climate have made it clear that warming, ice sheet melting, and extreme weather events are all going to be worse than what had been projected in earlier modelling. According to the projections of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report “6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are set to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C”. In addition, “impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence)”. In order to avoid a 1.5-degree-celsius increase in average global temperatures compared to 1850-1900, “we need to see a reduction in emissions of “CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). Even if this reduction in emissions is achieved, the report’s modelling suggests that the risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree target would remain. Furthermore, large-scale singular events like the disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would continue to occur, reflecting the “relatively large, abrupt and sometimes irreversible changes in systems that are caused by global warming”.
As Australia continues to feel the disastrous effects of global warming, the Morrison government has become increasingly vocal and intransigent in its denial of human-induced climate change. Although some inner metropolitan ministers have indicated support for net-zero emissions in the distant future, the LNP, and, to a lesser extent, the ALP, are wedded to the extractive industries. These industries, which notably include extractive fossil fuel, comprise one of the dominant sectors of Australian monopoly capital. For this reason, we see MPs in both the LNP and ALP who actively talk up the continued necessity of fossil fuels, albeit at times conceding the need for “clean” fossil fuels, in Australia’s energy mix. However, most of these arguments rely on talking points regarding both fossil fuels and renewables that were at best only factually correct decades ago - most notably with regards to the cost of power and the reliability of renewables but are now just flat-out lies.
The government’s resistance to climate action has inspired some sections of the climate movement to build the narrative that Australia is missing an opportunity to shift its economic base and become a “renewable energy powerhouse” or to argue for changes that simply shift the source of energy, without reducing power requirements, such with the push to move towards electric vehicles replacing fossil fuel-powered cars. Notable examples include the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Climate Council.
Undoubtedly, it is possible for Australia to play an important role in shifting the world’s energy production base to beyond net-zero, where we are releasing less carbon than the planet's capacity to remove it from the atmosphere. However, there are a number of problems with tying the need for climate action to drive up profits for capital.
We know that in order to sufficiently reduce emissions we need a global reduction in emissions. However, the Global North, which includes Australia, disproportionately produces greenhouse gases so it is these economies that must drive emissions reduction. We also know that the Global South is understandably trying to increase its energy production capacity to boost living standards and productive capacity in order to better meet the needs of their populations. Whilst this growth will need to priortise social goods over boosting individual consumer consumption, it is of central importance that the lead on this shift be taken by the Global North. The Global South should be supported in achieving this through a mass increase in renewable energy capacity by imperialist economies such as Australia. However, unlike with what we have seen with limited availability of vaccines in the Global South due to protecting the IP of pharmaceutical companies, this exchange needs to be based on genuine solidarity, not boomerang aid plans aimed at stripping the Global South of its wealth - a process that has continued unabated for more than 500 years.
The climate crisis is not just about emission levels but is a reflection of capitalist social relations. These relations are based on a constant drive to build profitability and result in massive wastage. This is not only in the form of overproduction but in mechanisms that drive consumption above what is necessary to sustain life, pushing the planet’s resources to their limits - such as built-in obsolescence which ensures shorter than necessary life to goods. For this reason, responses to the challenge of climate change can’t be premised on continuing with a profit-first approach to the economy, which is a primary driver of push around the use of cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens, even if these investments are really speculative Ponzi schemes, which require massive power consumption and have caused power crises in country after country. Either we seek to expand profits and continue on our express train to totally exhaust the planet’s resources, or make the changes necessary to have a sustainable economy that meets human needs. If we opt for the first approach we make it harder to make the argument for the need to move away from growth, which is just as essential to the planet’s survival as addressing climate change. We need to be clear about the measures that are necessary, and this includes seeking to achieve climate action based on degrowth, which has been defined as “voluntary transition towards a just, participatory and ecologically sustainable society”
Finally, advocating for action based on its economic potential accepts the fundamental capitalist logic for determining action. That is the reason that capitalists and their governments have delayed action has been based on an economic judgement that it is better for the economy to not take action. Arguing that there is money to be made from climate action, simply takes this logic and flips it. In doing so advocates of this position help to undermine their own position should the promise of jobs and profits fall short.
We need to reject the premise that action should be driven by what is profitable and instead argue for a position that prioritises effective action to limit climate damage and envisions a society that ensures a decent quality of life for everyone, whatever the cost.
In saying this, I recognise that actors such as the Climate Centre and the WWF operate within the framework of the capitalist growth drive. So my argument is not primarily aimed at them. Instead, it is aimed at those in the movement who are open to the reality that we are pushing towards the planet’s limits and calling on them to embrace and argue for a climate strategy based on degrowth. The louder this voice is the greater the chance we have of building a climate movement that meets the challenges we face and to of lesser importance pull the more conservative voices of the existing movement into having to address and listen to our arguments and join us in saving the planet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
Posts
