[WSF-Discuss] Some criticisms of the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration

[CACIM]

Some criticisms of the Belem Ecosocialist DeclarationMarch 24, 2009

@ http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=655

*Daniel Tanuro, a certified agriculturalist and eco-socialist
environmentalist, writes for “La gauche”, (the monthly of the LCR-SAP,
Belgian section of the Fourth International), and Inprecor. This article was
submitted to the discussion of the **Belem Declaration, which the
Ecosocialist International Network distributed*<http://ecosocialistnetwork.org/>
* at the World social Forum in Brazil in January. His comments were
published in **International
Viewpoint*<http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1633>
*.*

Dear friends and comrades,

The “Belem Declaration” is an important document issued at a very important
moment.

As an ecosocialist focused on climate change, I totally agree with the
general orientation of this document: denunciation of capitalist growth,
productivism, and capitalist strategies to cope with global warming. Among
other points, the link with the indigenous peoples, their culture and their
struggles is especially important, in my view.

But the declaration lacks some key aspects, on the one hand, while some
precise statements are clumsy or wrong, on the other hand.

My main remark is that an ecosocialist declaration should absolutely link
the climate crisis to the worst and deepest business crisis since 1929. This
is a key condition if we want to get some influence among the workers and
the poor in general.

We should explain that the combination of both crisis opens a totally new
situation. Indeed, this combination means nothing less than a general
exhaustion of the capitalist system: on the one hand, a new long wave of
capitalist growth would ask a very brutal attack against the working class
and the poor in general, on the other hand a real business recovery –even a
green one- would provoke a catastrophic runaway climate change. In this
context, there is simply no alternative, but an ecosocialist one.

(I have just written a document about this combination and some strategic
conclusions to draw of it. You can find it – in French- on Europe Solidaire
sans Frontières <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article12340>.)

Because the globalisation of economic and climate crisis makes ecosocialism
so urgent and necessary, the declaration should give much more importance to
the social demands of workers. Rich economies have to reduce their energy
consumption by 50% or more. Such a reduction can not be achieved only by
better energy efficiency: a certain “de-growth” of material production and
consumption will be necessary. This means the declaration should absolutely
support and promote demands like a radical reduction of working time without
wage losses, the nationalisation with expropriation of utilities, the
retraining of workers without wage losses and under workers control, public
services devoted to the insulation and energy improvement of buildings, a
redistribution of wealth thanks to the taxation of the rich and the
nationalisation of the bank system, etc.

By the way, I find following statements clumsy or even false (in some
cases):

   - “for the capital commands the means of production of knowledge (…),
   accordingly, its professors send forth an endless stream of proposals, all
   variations on the theme that the world’s ecological damage can be repaired
   without disruption of market mechanisms and of the system of accumulation
   that commands the world economy”. Would you say that to James Hansen, or
   Ignacio Chapela, or others scientists like these two? Surely, they are not
   ecosocialist activists, but neither are they “professors of the capital”! We
   should encourage honest scientists in their fight against capitalist
   lobbies, call them to take their political responsabilities, and start a
   dialogue with them. The text is really clumsy from that point of view.
   - (in the Kyoto system) “polluters are not compelled to reduce their
   carbon emissions”. This is simply not true. Polluters are compelled to
   reduce their emissions, they will even be fined if they do not 100 (Euros/t
   in the ETS). Though, this is the reason why they managed to get an
   overallocation of quotas, free allocations and more carbon credits. This is
   one of the “positive” aspects of the Kyoto Protocol. Though, another
   “positive” aspect is that there are indeed some limits “to the amount of
   emission credits which can be issued by compliant governments” (and to the
   kind of activities giving right to credits, too). Even if the Protocol is
   bad, insufficient, dangerous, we should not underestimate some “positive”
   aspects of it, because there is a risk that the new treaty will be worse.
   - “Since verification and evaluation of results are impossible, the Kyoto
   regime is not only incapable of controlling emissions…”. This is partly true
   for carbon credits (due to the loopholes in the CDM) and for carbon sinks
   (technically very difficult) but not for the CO2 emissions in developed
   countries, which are very precisely measured, reported and verified.
   - As even the *Wall Street Journa*l put it in March, 2007, emissions
   trading “would make money for some very large corporations, but don’t
   believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.”
   We should be careful with that kind of quotations coming from that kind of
   bourgeois newspaper. The *Wall Street Journal*, like many others in the
   US, is (was?) opposed to Kyoto for very bad reasons, indeed!
   - “Bali avoided any mention of the goals for drastic carbon reduction put
   forth by the best climate science (90% by 2050)”. Sorry, this is untrue.
   Instead, the footnote in the Bali roadmap clearly refers to very precise and
   very important pages in the IPCC AR4. Page 776 of Working group 3
   contribution, for instance: from the table at this page, one must conclude
   that developed countries must reduce their emissions by 80-95% by 2050 while
   developing countries must “deviate substantially from the business as usual
   scenario”. Ecosocialists should repeat and repeat that the drastic emission
   reductions “put forth by the best climate science” ARE mentioned in the Bali
   agreement, and that this agreement engages the governments. They should
   denounce the governments because they do not respect their Bali engagement.
   Actually, not to do that makes it easier for the bourgeois governments to
   kick “the best climate science” into the long grass. This, in my view, is a
   very important tactical point in the mobilisation. Not only towards the
   governments and the media, but also towards the environmental NGO, which
   also dodge some figures from the Bali roadmap (see my article – in English -
   on this very on http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article11808).
   By the way, for the same tactical reason, the declaration should quote the
   Intergovernmental PCC on this point, instead of using a vague formula about
   “the best climate science”.
   - “Ecosocialism involves a revolutionary social transformation, which
   will imply the limitation of growth”. Two remarks: (i) a negative growth
   (and note barely a limitation of growth) of the MATERIAL production and
   consumption (not a general one) is needed now, immediately, in the developed
   countries, and (ii) I suggest ecosocialists to make a difference between
   growth on the one hand and development on the other hand.

The concrete demands relating to the energy system should give the absolute
priority to energy efficiency and the reduction of energy consumption. This
a “sine qua non” condition for the transition towards a system based on
renewable sources. Giving this priority is also very important in the
polemics against green capitalism, green win-win recovery, etc. By the way,
all renewable energy sources, except geothermal, are solar sources. I do not
know if it is still possible to change the document. I hope so, because the
initiative is excellent and we all need something like that, indeed.

Comradely yours
Daniel Tanuro
COMMENTS*Comments Policy:* If you want to argue that global warming isn’t
real, please go elsewhere: comments from deniers and similar trolls will be
deleted. Otherwise, we encourage comradely discussion and debate on the
subjects covered in this journal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20090329/f4907483/attachment.html>