Han Ehrbar writes: > > As I understand it, the main idea of the Durban framework is > to get binding commitments of each nation in terms of their > emissions.
And how are they supposed to achieve these commitments? Market measures have failed repeatedly, and instead of seeing why that happened, instead of even realizing that it did happen, there is silence. > It wants binding buy-in from all nations and it > knows that this can only be achived if it is very weak. But > there are scientific criteria how much emission reductions > are necessary. If the sum of individual commitments are not > enough, the 2015 climate pact will try to establish some > international mechanism how to create the additional > commitments. Instead of condemning the forces that are standing in the way of action, they are glossing over everything. This is a figleaf to cover the utter nakedness of the bourgeoisie since the failure of the Copenhagen summit. It is silent but very real, stubborn, and unconscionable defense of the indefensible. > If you want to criticize the Durban framework, you can say > that it is wrong to try to get a globally binding agreement, > because an agreement which requires consensus from every > party can never be strong enough. But I would not call a > binding international agreement "market fundamentalist." They are papering over the failure of market fundamentalism. They are calling for a type of agreement that continues the same path to environmental ruin. > Market fundamentalists do not want international agreements > at all since they intrude on the sovereignty of individual > nations. Bull! The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement, and it was based on market measures. Cap and trade involves international agreements. Carbon offsets involve international agreements. The carbon tax will eventually involve international agreements. The IMF, World Bank, and WTO are market fundamentalist. Market fundamentalists want neo-liberal international agreements. > The Durban framework is also not market > fundamentalist because it leaves it up to each nation how to > reach their commitments, they can use either cap and trade > or carbon taxes. > Both cap and trade and carbon taxes are market measures, promoted as alternatives to regulation and control. >> serious activists should look into bringing the class >> struggle into the environmental movement. > > If you define class struggle as struggle for control of > means of production, the environmental movement is a kind of > class struggle. It is the struggle for control over and > benefit from the earth's natural resources, which are means > of production. The imperialists struggle for control over the means of production and the earth's natural resources. The international market fundamentalist organizations struggle over control of these things too. > Therefore it is not necessary to bring class > struggle into the environmental movement. All you have to > do is recognize that it already is class struggle. You are redefining the world; the point of class struggle, however, is to change it. > You can > use it as a lever to not only challenge the control of > natural resources by the capitalists but also their control > of the produced means of production. What? In the previous two sentences, you said in effect that it was already being used as a lever (it was already class struggle). Now, barely a few words later, you say that environmentalism *can* be used (i.e. it could be used) as a lever... What happened to the claim that the class struggle was already alive and well? Well, that class struggle -- the one waged by establishment environmentalism -- didn't last long, did it? -- Joseph Green _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
