> > Joseph wrote, trying to characterize my logic: > >> Your logic seems to be that, since the problem has to be >> addressed now, under the present society, therefore we >> have to select something, whether cap and trade or the >> carbon tax, that is realistic according to the present >> market fundamentalist politicians and corporate leaders. >
Hans Ehrbar wrote: > In my view, a carbon tax is much better than cap and trade, > but the best policy would be carbon rationing as developed > in the UK. Some capitalist policies do actually work. For > instance feed-in tariffs are both effective and > cost-effective. These are the things we have to fight for. The only measures you mention are market measures. Those are the things you wish to fight for, the things might be "realistic according to the present market fundamentalist politicians and corporate leaders". You don't mention the measures of regulation and control, which were the measures most effective in the environmental cleanup in the past (although the type regulation and control needed to deal with the current environmental crisis can't simply be a repeat of the old ones). The market measures are those measures which have failed under Kyoto, but you stand for policy wonkery to develop new forms of them. So it seems that you have essentially the viewpoint of Al Gore, except he calls this "using market capitalism as an ally" and you regard it as the waging of the class struggle against the bourgeoisie. You have restricted your viewpoint to weighting those policies advocated by the trend which wishes to find an alternative to regulation and control. > You want to leap from market fundamentalism directly to > socialized production. Regulation and control and even mass participation in such regulation and control are not the same as socialism. But the neo-liberals denounce anything, even the Affordable Care Act, as socialism. > I think we should go from market > fundamentalism to a regulated capitalism. And yet you put forward the market measures, measures that have been developed as alternatives to the so-called "command and control". But in any case, it's one thing to advocate actual measures of regulation and control and planning, and another to advocate "regulated capitalism". Supporting the struggle for higher wages doesn't require one to believe in humanitarian or non-exploitative capitalism, nor does advocating serious environmental measures require singing the virtues of "regulated capitalism". Capitalism will always be fundamentally anarchic; and the type regulation the capitalism will want to impose during an emergency can be seen by the example of war-time planning by capitalist governments. . And it's notable, for example, that the more serious advocates of such things as carbon rationing and the carbon tax discuss the problem of the harsh effects of these policies on the masses. They dream that if these measures are carried out in the exact form they advocate -- which they won't be of course -- that these effects might be mitigated. It's typical how various reformists can demand that programs be cut down to what's acceptable to the current neo-liberal politicians, and then declare with confidence that these programs won't be carried out in a neo-liberal way, but instead will be implemented with full sensitivity to the needs of the people. > This is what the > mass movement will want to do. It's certainly what people what Al Gore will want to do if they ever abandon market fundamentalism. > It is not obvious how > capitalism should be regulated, but there are lots of > examples out there, some successful and some not. And yet, the examples you give are market measures. > it will also become obvious whether capitalist regulation > works. You say it cannot work, I say we cannot know where > the limits are without trying it out. What I wrote is that environmental regulation and control can be serious measures, and they should be demanded now, in the present situation, but that they will be partial under capitalism, and the capitalists will seek to implement them in a way that oppresses the masses. > If it doesn't work > despite best practices within the capitalist system, this > will be the time when expropriation is on the agenda, this > is the time when everybody understands that expropriation is > necessary. The failure of the Kyoto Protocol was the failure of market measures, and yet new forms of these measures are still being advocated. So long as there is no organized challenge to establishment environmentalism, one bankrupt bourgeois policy will be advocated to replace another. > > It is hard to predict how things will evolve, but here is a > possible scenario. Some capitalists may try to sabotage the > switch to green energy, ... Their > businesses should be nationalized if they do. This sabotage has already been going on for years. Yet -- surprise, surprise --we haven't yet seen establishment environmentalism advocate these nationalizations, and you yourself suggest them only as a matter of the future. For today, you're still into trying to nudge these firms by measures to tinker with the carbon price and/or with subsidies to these firms. As I pointed out, the leadership of such groups as the Nature Conservancy (and not just of the Nature Conservancy) actually had financial deals with BP, and blithely continued them during the oil spill and the aftermath. But I guess it's easier to dream of marching hand-in-hand with Al Gore and the establishment environmentalists to nationalize businesses in the future then to criticize Al Gore and establishment environmentalism and seek to build up an alternative environmental movement. -- Joseph Green _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
