Project for 21st century democratic ecological socialism

A project of the Australian SEARCH Committee.

Recognising the vital need for a people’s movement for a new democratic ecological socialism and the opportunities opening up to advance it, the SEARCH Foundation resolves to initiate an open process to draft a document called Project for a 21st Century Democratic Ecological Socialism, to be published by the end of 2009.

This document will be aimed at Australian society, but fully address the global problems faced by humanity and all life on planet Earth, because of the current crises in the economy and ecology.

The document is aimed at maximum public education with the aim of inspiring positive projects for education, organisation and mobilisation of the Australian people for democracy, social justice and ecological sustainability. It is not an organisational initiative in itself.
PDF of essay.

Debating Climate Change Deniers

A recent BBC poll shows that there is a significant shift in the U.K. on whether climate change is happening and whether it is human-made. This is a warning sign for all of us.

Any review of blogs, commentaries, YouTube and other social media will confirm that there is a broad and aggressive effort by right-wing climate change deniers to undermine public understanding of the science behind climate change.

So how do we respond to these denial claims? They range from simplistic rants to science-oriented spins. Do we all need to become amateur scientists to confidently respond?

We do need to become well-informed but we also need to know where to find the resources to back up our arguements and make references to.

Here are a few online resources but there are many more. Feel free to add others under comments. Deniers will be expunged. Use this information to copy and paste to friends, doubters and bloggers.

Websites

Skeptical Science: Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skeptism
David Suzuki Foundation: Reports and Resources
Real Climate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
American Association for the Advancement of Science
DeSmogBlog: Clearing the PR cloud that clouds climate science

Videos

Greenman's3610 Channel
Potholer54's Channel
Democracy Now video:
PR Executive James Hoggan on “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” 


Debating

Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them
Answers Come There None - George Monbiot
How to talk to your friends about climate change
Online debating tips
Framing climate debate
Communicating Climate Breakdown

Analysis

The Psychology of Denial: Climate Warming Scam
The Politics of Climate Denial
Think-Tanks Take Oil Money and Use it to Fund Climate Deniers
Climate denialism and reasonable doubt
Climate Science Under Fire

"In the last year, I've seen climate change scepticism breed and multiply in British political debate. The misinformation and ignorance would be worrying in itself, but it's bound to eventually effect policy. It was prevalent in the US when Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto protocols. It was sufficiently prevalent for Saudia Arabia use it as a pretext for not doing anything to reduce emissions during the last Copenhagen round.

I'd urge you all, for our collective health, to push back against this cult where can find it: antidote it with fact, mock it with humour, point out the flaws in its conspiratorial premises, but above all to separate the science from the ideology.

Our lives could depend on it."
- Brit, Daily Kos

Arctic Treasure: Global Assets Melting Away

The PEW

Ice and snow are defining features of the Arctic. At no point in at least 800,000 years has the Arctic been without sea ice. By some projections the region may lose summer sea ice as soon as 2030. In a sense, the value of this ice is incalculable. Arctic ice defines the homelands and cultures of indigenous peoples and ecosystems that harbor species which are uniquely adapted to this environment.

In another sense, however, part of the value of the frozen Arctic can be estimated in terms of the climate services it provides to the world. Snow and ice reflect sunlight, helping to cool the Earth. Without these reflective surfaces, more sunlight is absorbed, leading to more warming. In addition, permafrost traps methane, a potent greenhouse gas. While many studies have examined the mechanisms by which the frozen Arctic and global climate are interrelated, this report, An Initial Estimate of the Cost of Lost Climate Regulation Services Due to Changes in the Arctic Cryosphere, is the first attempt to estimate the dollar cost of global warming brought about by shrinking ice, snow and permafrost.

Read the summary, Arctic Treasure: Global Assets Melting Away (PDF)

View Full Report: Report: Arctic Treasure: Global Assets Melting Away

Canada's arctic climate changing faster than expected

Climate change is transforming the Arctic environment faster than expected and accelerating the disappearance of sea ice, scientists said on Friday in giving their early findings from the biggest-ever study of Canada's changing north.

"(Climate change) is happening much faster than our most pessimistic models expected," said David Barber, a professor at the University of Manitoba and the study's lead investigator, at a news conference in Winnipeg.

Models predicted only a few years ago that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by the year 2100, but the increasing pace of climate change now suggests it could happen between 2013 and 2030, Barber said.

Scientists link higher Arctic temperatures and melting sea ice to the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

The Arctic is considered a type of early-warning system of climate change for the rest of the world.
- Arctic climate changing faster than expected - Reuters

Study Says Arctic Ice Melt to Cost Global Economy $2.4 Trillion - ABC

A Class Perspective on Ecology and Indian Movements

Diversity with Inequality is Not Social Justice
by James Petras*

There are two opposing approaches to the analysis of ecological destruction and the emergence of Indian movements in Latin America: the liberal and the Marxist. Profesor James Petras answers about this questions.

Introduction
There are two opposing approaches to the analysis of ecological destruction and the emergence of Indian movements in Latin America: the liberal and the Marxist.

The liberal approach emphasizes ‘universal responsibility” for the destruction of the environment – rich and poor, mining companies and miners, factory owners and factory workers, auto manufacturers and drivers, governments and citizens, real estate speculators and slum dwellers. The liberal ecologists claim the negative consequences adversely affect everyone: “We all suffer from the destruction of the environment.”

The liberal approach to the development of Indian movements and politics follows a similar approach, using the non-class categories of ‘community’, ‘culture’ and religion, to discuss Indian social structure as a ‘homogenous’ social phenomenon.

The Marxist approach to ecological destruction and Indian social movements focuses on the inequality of power and control over the means of production and destruction, unequal exposure to contamination in the workplace and neighborhoods, inequality in access to land and use of chemical fertilizers and herbicides and other contaminants and unequal access to state power. Marxists focus on the class structure, class inequalities and the class nature of the environmental disasters which take place.

Marxists view ethnic and contemporary Indian movements, policies, leadership and relationships in relationship to the larger class system through the lens of class analysis. Marxists do not accept the liberal rhetoric and indigenous identity or ‘indigenista’ ideological assumption that Indian society is made up of homogeneous ‘communities’ bound together by harmonious undifferentiated ethnic interests without class divisions and conflicting class interests.

Today, even more than in the past, the deepening penetration of capitalist expansion and market relations, capitalist and socialist ideology and political parties, imperialist funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by US and European governments and the World Bank, have created class-polarized and divided Indian societies. ‘Communalism’ and communitarian ideology is the ideology of the rising Indian economic and political petit bourgeoisie articulated to subordinate the impoverished Indian peasantry to their struggle to share power with the established ‘European’ or mestizo bourgeoisie.

Case Studies

To demonstrate the validity and relevance of the class analysis approach to ecology and the Indian movements, it is essential to empirically examine concrete contemporary cases of major environmental issues and existing Indian movements. We have chosen several cases of environmental disasters, which have large-scale, long-term negative impacts, which are familiar to world public opinion. These include: Fish depletion in the waters off Eastern Canada, Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the world wide food crises and global warming.

Fish Depletion
Maritime scientists have published numerous studies documenting the catastrophic decline in fish stocks, the destruction of livelihood of millions of small-scale fishermen and the loss of maritime high protein food for tens of millions of poor people. The causes, according to liberal ecologists are ‘over-fishing’, ‘contamination; and state subsidies – without identifying the class character of those responsible.

Socialist Project: Founding Statement

Ecosocialism and Cuba

Cuba constructs environmentally sustainable socialism

During a recent visit to Cuba, we stopped by an agricultural cooperative on the outskirts of Havana. Its farmers and cooperatives across the country are part of what’s widely acknowledged as the world’s largest organic farming experiment. Hundreds of thousands of farmers at the grassroots proudly proclaim themselves part of Cuba’s “environmental movement.”

In 2008 Cuba was devastated by three full force hurricanes that caused some $10 billion in damage, including 400,000 homes destroyed and widespread crop damage. Cubans link the growing destructive power and frequency of the hurricanes with global climate change. Understandably, environmental awareness and the need for radical measures to curb global warming run high.

Remarkably, in 2006 the World Wildlife Federation rated Cuba as the only country that combined high human development standards as defined by high literacy and health indexes with a low ecological footprint including electricity consumed and carbon dioxide emitted per capita.

This got me interested in the path of sustainable socialist development Cuba has chosen and how environmental consciousness developed. How could an underdeveloped country with limited economic resources have an environmental record better than its wealthy neighbor to the north? The story gives one great hope that planet Earth can be saved.

The effort to reverse environmental destruction and follow a path of sustainable development is all the more remarkable considering Cuba’s history, the US blockade and continuous efforts to overthrow its government.

The Revolution charts a new course

Backgrounder: Harper government’s January 2010 greenhouse gas target

- Greenpeace Canada

On January 30, 2010, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced new targets for Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2020. The government says it made this announcement to fulfill a condition of the non-binding Copenhagen Accord that came out of the unsuccessful United Nations climate conference in December 2009 in Copenhagen.

•The Harper government’s new target for greenhouse gas reductions, announced on January 30, 2010, is 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020

•The government’s previous target (adopted in 2006 as part of the government’s “Turning the Corner” climate change plan) was a 20 per cent reduction below 2006 levels by 2020.

•Greenhouse gas emissions are typically referenced to 1990, which is the emissions base year used by the Kyoto Protocol.

•A 17 per cent reduction from the 2005 level by 2020 would actually mean that Canada’s emissions target would increase to 2.5 per cent above 1990 levels.

•The government’s previous target (a 20 per cent reduction from the 2006 level by 2020) would have reduced emissions to 3 per cent below 1990 levels.

•Canadian greenhouse gas emissions were 731 million tonnes in 2005; 718 million tonnes in 2006; and 747 million tonnes in 2007 (the most recent year for which data is available). Reference: Environment Canada, National Inventory Report 1990-2007

•Greenpeace and other environmental groups have called on Canada to adopt a science-based emissions reduction target of at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020.

•The Harper government says it changed its target as part of a submission requested under the Copenhagen Accord by January 31, 2010 (see paragraph 4 of the Accord).

•Greenpeace and other environmental organizations have denounced the Copenhagen Accord as a totally inadequate document that undermines the United Nations negotiating process.

•The Accord is not legally binding; its fails to provide an aggregate science-based reduction target for industrialized nations; and has no firm financial commitments to support emission reductions and adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries.

•The Harper government target is even inconsistent with the Accord, which calls on parties to the Kyoto Protocol to “further strengthen” their commitments under the Protocol (see paragraph 4 of the Accord). Canada’s binding commitment under the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 6 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
•Far from strengthening Canada’s Kyoto commitment, the Harper government’s new greenhouse gas target of 606.7 million tonnes in 2020, is actually 9 per cent above Canada’s legally binding Kyoto target of 558.4 million tonnes, which was supposed to have been achieved by the end of 2012.

•Environment Minister Prentice’s rationale for the new target is “harmonization” with the same target adopted by the American Congress in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the Waxman – Markey bill).

•Canada should provide leadership on climate change, not follow a bad lead from Washington.

•It is worth noting that the impact of the U.S. and Canadian targets is different. In the U.S., emissions are expected to be 3 to 4 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020. The Harper government target (if achieved) would result in Canadian emissions about 2.5 per cent above 1990 levels in 2020.

Greens Decry Harper Government Moving to Even Weaker GHG

 - Green Party of Canada - Parti vert du Canada

Harper has done it again. Hiding behind the US weak greenhouse gas targets, Canada has now watered down our commitment again, setting a new base year of 2005 for greenhouse gas reductions. "After sabotaging progress in Copenhagen, the Harper government has now moved to an even weaker target," said Green Leader Elizabeth May.

In 2006, when the Harper Conservatives were elected, Canada was legally bound to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Under the Conservatives and the Liberals, our emissions have been rising. The Harper government has repudiated our legally binding commitments and cancelled all climate programmes. Now they have set a target which would leave Canada above 1990 levels by 2020.

"The Conservatives are playing with numbers and we still have no concrete plan on how to begin reducing emissions and how to shift us toward the new green economy of Canada's future. The North calls on our government to act," said John Streicker, Green Party Critic for Arctic and Northern Affairs.

“Our long-awaited 'Made in Canada' plan is once again 'Made in Houston'. Canada has no plan to reduce greenhouse gases, while Harper focuses on media spin to avoid bad press,’” said Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, Green Climate Critic. “I would have thought a solution truly made in Canada would reflect the spirit of international cooperation and leadership Canadians want their country to show.”

The Copenhagen Accord requires Annex I Parties to enhance the emissions reductions beyond Kyoto, a requirement which will not be met by the current Conservative plan.

“It is unacceptable to continually lower our commitment to deal with the climate crisis and then hide behind the US target. The difference is the US has put $112 billion into Green energy choices and has a real plan, while Canada has killed green energy funding and has no plan," noted May.

Canada lowers targets they have no plans to meet

It is all too apparent that Harper and his oil-loving backers are looking for any excuse to lower, eliminate or just ignore any substantial committment to preventing climate change disaster. We need to continue to build a coalition that will bring down Harper and replace him with representatives with a commitment to the common good and our common survival.

Also, there is this new facebook group:
Canadians Against Canada's Climate Plan

The below is exerpted from the Globe and Mail (emphasis added)

The federal government formally notified the United Nations that Canada will cut its carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels over the next 10 years as part of the Copenhagen accord on climate change, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Saturday.

But a spokesman for Greenpeace says these targets will actually increase emissions, not lower them.

 The Canadian targets are similar to those of the United States, something the federal government planned all along, Mr. Prentice said.

“Throughout the Copenhagen negotiations we maintained that our clear policy was to support the outcome of Copenhagen and also to align our clean-energy and climate-change policies with those of the Obama administration,” he said.

Although reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 per cent will be challenging, Mr. Prentice said he believes it is attainable. He didn't offer any specifics about which actions would be taken to achieve those cuts.

“We'll deal specifically with the oil sands, we'll deal specifically with all sources of emissions, but today the objective of this announcement is to fulfill our obligations under the accord,” he said. “We know we can achieve that target, we're prepared to stand behind it and other countries will now have to do the same.”

While the government's previous emission targets, announced in 2006, would have resulted in a 3-per-cent reduction in emissions over 1990 levels, these latest targets will actually increase emissions by 2.5 per cent, said Dave Martin, a climate and energy co-ordinator with Greenpeace.

“We're heading in exactly the opposite direction that we need to head,” Mr. Martin said. “Not only have they reneged on the target that they adopted a couple of years ago, they have also failed to put in place the regulations that they promised last year.”

 He said the lack of details on how to achieve those emission cuts is indicative of the real problem the Conservative government has with the climate change issue.

 “I think they're really beholden to the oil and gas industry in Alberta and they don't want to address how to make serious reductions to protect the planet and the environment,” Mr. Martin said.

See commentary on this issue at Canadians for Climate Change Action.

COP15 video

Climate Action Network undermines strong resolve of developing states

Below are two critiques of the "People's Submission" posted earlier reposted from Peace, Earth and Justice News. Comments are encouraged.

In January 29 CLimate Action Network sent the following to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “A People’s Submission on Canada, Climate Change and the Copenhagen Accord”

Enclosed two responses submitted to the Climate Action Network website.

1. Comment and proposal Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project

While the criticism of Harper and his Conservative government, and of the Copenhagen Accord are important, the measures proposed in the above submission, are way below what is being advocated by progressive states such as Bolivia.

Implementation of UNFCCC; TIME TO BE BOLD

At COP 15, on December 17 and 18, presentations were made, by the head of states, to the Assembly. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Sadly, it was clear at COP 15 that the demands of the majority of states were disregarded. On December 7, Papua New Guinea had proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the Parties should strive for Consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the Chair.

If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 along with some of the member states of the European union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the UNFCCC would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding agreement. While it could be argued, on the one hand, that this agreement would be irrelevant because the major greenhouse gas producers would have not signed on, but on the other hand, citizens in the major greenhouse gas producing states could use the agreement to pressure their governments to make commitments to stronger emissions reductions. Hopefully that in COP 16 in Mexico, the demands of the majority will be respected.

Signing of the Copenahagen accord currently in front of heads of states would undermine the actions necessary to make the drastic cuts necessary to fulfill the legal obligations under article 2 of the UNFCCC to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.“

Would your state, sign this document, if at least 75% of the states agreed to sign and ratifiy a strong statement.

We affirm that

The UNFCCC is ratified by 194 countries – representing near universal membership – it commands near universal support and its legitimacy is unquestioned. The UNFCCC stated: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. This level equates to a target of below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilize many ecosystems and human societies.

and That

Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and the parts per million to 300 ppm. Strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, and differentiated responsibility principle [the emission debt owed by Developed countries to developing countries has to be seriously addressed].and developed country parties agree to acknowledge their emissions debt to developing countries, to cancel their existing debt of developing countries, to implement the long-standing obligation of .7% of GDP for overseas development, to ensure new funding for climate change reparation. In addition, developed country parties will renounce war and reallocate military expenses.

http://www.climatechangecopenhagen.org/

2. Comment and analysis of the Climate Action Network Cory Moringstar

CAN states: Canada should commit to a science-based emissions reduction target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 – “further strengthening” the government’s current target of 3 per cent below 1990 by 2020, as required by the Copenhagen Accord.

And this;

Over 150,000 Canadians have signed the KYOTOplus petition which calls for emission cuts of 25 per cent below 1990 by 2020; an effective national plan to reach this target; help for developing countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change; and a fair, ambitious and legally-binding second phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

These targets are not fair and ambitious. They are incredibly outdated and they are now nothing more than a slap in the face to those most vulnerable. They fly in the face of true climate justice. This target is from an outdated campaign and should be abandoned immediately. This target itself is an embarrassment to Canadians. The targets CAN supports are not at all based on the current science. What a crime that such a weak, passive statement is being sent representative of so many NGOs.

In Copenhagen, the G77 & Bolivia called for targets of 1C, 52% by 2017, 65% by 2020, 80% by 2030 & well above 100 by 2050 (by developed countries). There can be no denying of what targets those most vulnerable have asked us to support. During COP15 CAN was in the room when Lumumba Di-Aping asked all NGOs, including CAN to support these targets. So why is CAN not supporting the targets needed for those most at risk to simply live.
http://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/eyes-wide-shut-tcktcktck-expose-from-activist-insider/

We reviewed the recent CAN International Copenhagen policy paper. This is not a policy paper designed to prevent global climate catastrophe. It is in fact a global suicide pact.
CAN states (international policy paper):

1. It is a non global emergency policy (even though the paper says the survival of humanity and ecology is at stake)
2. States that 2C is the danger level. At 1.5 we lose small island states.
3. There is no mention of gov’t imposing a price on carbon and no carbon pricing is given to achieve goals.
4. The failed Kyoto process is the only assumed process.
5. No mention of carbon taxing – without which nothing can work.
6. No clear submission that we are beyond dangerous climate interference now, though it is inferred.
7. The introductory paragraph (and the paper) does not document the dangers; No mention runaway or Arctic methane feedbacks – the greatest danger to the survival of life on Earth. No mention of Arctic at all. There is no mention of the catastrophic dangers to agriculture – the greatest danger to survival of huge populations and humanity (excludingArctic).
8. Delaying global peaking up to 2017 has no rationale and is a crime.
9. Delaying something approaching virtual zero emissions till 2050 is insane certain catastrophe. CO2 emissions are cumulative so to stop further increase in atmospheric CO2 zero must be targeted and fast.
10. Delaying reaching atmospheric 350C02 eq to 100 years from now is insane. So long as CO2 is above 350ppm global warming and ocean acidification will continue.
11. No clear submission of a zero carbon emissions policy target – this receives one mention .
12. No mention of non CO2 GHGs
13. No mention of black carbon soot.